PURPOSE: Investigation into the characteristics of anesthetic interactions may provide clues to anesthesia mechanisms. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-adrenergic receptor agonist, has become a popular sedative in intensive care, and hydroxyzine, a histamine receptor antagonist, is well known as a tranquilizing premedication for anesthesia. However, no experimental or pharmacological evaluation has been reported concerning their combination with propofol. Thus, we studied their combined effect with a hypnotic dose of propofol in ddY mice. METHODS: Male adult mice were intravenously administered either dexmedetomidine (30 μg/kg) or hydroxyzine (5 mg/kg) with propofol (3.75-10 mg/kg) to induce hypnosis, defined as a loss of the righting reflex (LRR). Other mice were intravenously administered propofol, dexmedetomidine (300 μg/kg), or hydroxyzine (50 mg/kg) alone, and subsequent behavioral changes were observed. The 50% effective dose (ED(50)) for LRR was calculated, and the duration of LRR was determined. RESULTS: The hypnotic dose of propofol was 9.95 ± 1.04 mg/kg (ED(50) ± SEM) without combination. Dexmedetomidine and hydroxyzine reduced the ED(50) of propofol to 5.32 ± 0.57 and 5.63 ± 0.57 mg/kg, respectively. Coadministration of dexmedetomidine significantly extended LRR duration compared with propofol alone, whereas hydroxyzine significantly shortened LRR duration. A maximal dose of dexmedetomidine or hydroxyzine alone did not induce hypnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine and hydroxyzine demonstrated no hypnotic action alone; however, their coadministration potentiated the hypnotic activity of propofol. Although reduction in the dose of propofol was similar, only dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of hypnosis.
PURPOSE: Investigation into the characteristics of anesthetic interactions may provide clues to anesthesia mechanisms. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-adrenergic receptor agonist, has become a popular sedative in intensive care, and hydroxyzine, a histamine receptor antagonist, is well known as a tranquilizing premedication for anesthesia. However, no experimental or pharmacological evaluation has been reported concerning their combination with propofol. Thus, we studied their combined effect with a hypnotic dose of propofol in ddY mice. METHODS: Male adult mice were intravenously administered either dexmedetomidine (30 μg/kg) or hydroxyzine (5 mg/kg) with propofol (3.75-10 mg/kg) to induce hypnosis, defined as a loss of the righting reflex (LRR). Other mice were intravenously administered propofol, dexmedetomidine (300 μg/kg), or hydroxyzine (50 mg/kg) alone, and subsequent behavioral changes were observed. The 50% effective dose (ED(50)) for LRR was calculated, and the duration of LRR was determined. RESULTS: The hypnotic dose of propofol was 9.95 ± 1.04 mg/kg (ED(50) ± SEM) without combination. Dexmedetomidine and hydroxyzine reduced the ED(50) of propofol to 5.32 ± 0.57 and 5.63 ± 0.57 mg/kg, respectively. Coadministration of dexmedetomidine significantly extended LRR duration compared with propofol alone, whereas hydroxyzine significantly shortened LRR duration. A maximal dose of dexmedetomidine or hydroxyzine alone did not induce hypnosis. CONCLUSIONS:Dexmedetomidine and hydroxyzine demonstrated no hypnotic action alone; however, their coadministration potentiated the hypnotic activity of propofol. Although reduction in the dose of propofol was similar, only dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of hypnosis.
Authors: Edmond I Eger; Michael Tang; Mark Liao; Michael J Laster; Ken Solt; Pamela Flood; Andrew Jenkins; Douglas Raines; Jan F Hendrickx; Steven L Shafer; Tanifuji Yasumasa; James M Sonner Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.108