Literature DB >> 22222473

Sevoflurane remifentanil interaction: comparison of different response surface models.

Bjorn Heyse1, Johannes H Proost, Peter M Schumacher, Thomas W Bouillon, Hugo E M Vereecke, Douglas J Eleveld, Martin Luginbühl, Michel M R F Struys.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various pharmacodynamic response surface models have been developed to quantitatively describe the relationship between two or more drug concentrations with their combined clinical effect. We examined the interaction of remifentanil and sevoflurane on the probability of tolerance to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy in patients to compare the performance of five different response surface models.
METHODS: Forty patients preoperatively received different combined concentrations of remifentanil (0-12 ng/ml) and sevoflurane (0.5-3.5 vol.%) according to a criss-cross design (160 concentration pairs, four per patient). After having reached pseudosteady state, the response to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy was recorded. For the analysis of the probability of tolerance, five different interaction models were tested: Greco, Reduced Greco, Minto, Scaled C50(O) Hierarchical, and Fixed C50(O) Hierarchical model. All calculations were performed with NONMEM VI (Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD).
RESULTS: The pharmacodynamic interaction between sevoflurane and remifentanil was strongly synergistic for both the hypnotic and the analgesic components of anesthesia. The Greco model did not result in plausible parameter estimates. The Fixed C50(O) Hierarchical model performed slightly better than the Scaled C50(O) Hierarchical and Reduced Greco models, whereas the Minto model fitted less well.
CONCLUSION: We showed the importance of exploring various surface model approaches when studying drug interactions. The Fixed C50(O) Hierarchical model fits our data on sevoflurane remifentanil interaction best and appears to be an appropriate model for use in hypnotic-opioid drug interaction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22222473     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318242a2ec

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  11 in total

1.  Limitation in monitoring depth of anesthesia: a case report.

Authors:  Marco Cascella; Francesca Bifulco; Daniela Viscardi; Maura C Tracey; Domenico Carbone; Arturo Cuomo
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Monitoring the nociception level: a multi-parameter approach.

Authors:  Nir Ben-Israel; Mark Kliger; Galit Zuckerman; Yeshayahu Katz; Ruth Edry
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in anaesthesia.

Authors:  Pedro L Gambús; Iñaki F Trocóniz
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 4.  Pharmacokinetic Pharmacodynamic Modelling Contributions to Improve Paediatric Anaesthesia Practice.

Authors:  James D Morse; Luis Ignacio Cortinez; Brian J Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 5.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of anesthetic drugs: from modeling to clinical use.

Authors:  Valerie Billard
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2015-11-18

6.  Synergism between rocuronium and cisatracurium: comparison of the Minto and Greco interaction models.

Authors:  Soeun Jeon; Jae Young Kwon; Hae-Kyu Kim; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-06-22

7.  Efficacy of dexmedetomidine in reducing post-operative pain and improving the quality of recovery in patients with burn wounds undergoing tangential excision skin grafting.

Authors:  Meiru Jiang; Qiaoxia Sun; Ganggang Liu; Hua Qu; Jiahai Ma
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  Correlation between pain rating index and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration during sevoflurane anesthesia.

Authors:  Jian-Wen Zhang; Zhi-Gan Lv; Wei-Wei Zhang; Zhe Wang; Bao-Guo Wang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.671

9.  Comparison of haemodynamic- and electroencephalographic-monitored effects evoked by four combinations of effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil, yielding a predicted tolerance to laryngoscopy of 90.

Authors:  J P van den Berg; A R Absalom; A M Venema; A F Kalmar; K Van Amsterdam; L N Hannivoort; J H Proost; S Meier; T W L Scheeren; M M R F Struys; H E M Vereecke
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.502

10.  Comparison of recovery effect for sufentanil and remifentanil anesthesia with TCI in laparoscopic radical resection during colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yanyan Qi; Xiangyan Yao; Beibei Zhang; Xianhui DU
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 2.967

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.