Literature DB >> 24051391

Comparison of the potency of different propofol formulations: a randomized, double-blind trial using closed-loop administration.

Morgan Le Guen1, Stanislas Grassin-Delyle, Camille Cornet, Antoine Genty, Thierry Chazot, Dominique Dardelle, Ngai Liu, Jean-François Dreyfus, Jean-Xavier Mazoit, Philippe Devillier, Jean-Claude Alvarez, Daniel I Sessler, Marc Fischler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia.
METHODS: This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations-Diprivan (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propoven (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)-were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient's discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale.
RESULTS: Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propoven required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propoven (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P < 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported.
CONCLUSION: Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24051391     DOI: 10.1097/01.anes.0000435741.97234.04

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Propofol: a review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation.

Authors:  Vidya Chidambaran; Andrew Costandi; Ajay D'Mello
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 2.  Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults.

Authors:  Pramote Euasobhon; Sukanya Dej-Arkom; Arunotai Siriussawakul; Saipin Muangman; Wimonrat Sriraj; Porjai Pattanittum; Pisake Lumbiganon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-18

3.  Impact of a preoperative conversational hypnotic session on propofol consumption using closed-loop anesthetic induction guided by the bispectral index: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Aurélien Bataille; Sébastien Besset; Barbara Szekely; Mireille Michel-Cherqui; Virginie Dumans; Ngai Liu; Thierry Chazot; Marc Fischler; Morgan Le Guen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 4.  Metrology in medicine: from measurements to decision, with specific reference to anesthesia and intensive care.

Authors:  Pierre Squara; Michael Imhoff; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.627

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.