| Literature DB >> 28813523 |
Bin Wang1,2, Shouming Chen3, Jun Yang1, Linghui Yang1, Jin Liu1,2, Wensheng Zhang1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ET-26 HCl is a promising sedative-hypnotic anesthetic with virtually no effect on adrenocortical steroid synthesis. However, whether or not ET-26 HCl also has a sufficiently wide safety margin and hemodynamic stability similar to that of etomidate and related compounds remains unknown. In this study, the effects of ET-26 HCl, etomidate and propofol on therapeutic index, heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), maximal rate for left ventricular pressure rise (Dmax/t), and maximal rate for left ventricular pressure decline (Dmin/t) were investigated in healthy rats and a rat model of uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock (UHS).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28813523 PMCID: PMC5557577 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 150% median effective dose (ED50) for Loss of righting reflex (LORR) of A: ET-26 HCl; B: Propofol; C: Etomidate. Each symbol represents data from one rat. The curve is a fit of the data set using non-linear regression.
Indexes calculated during the ED50 and LD50 studies for ET-26 HCl, propofol, and etomidate in the rats.
| 2.1 | 5.4 | 0.66 | |
| 1.9–2.4 | 5.0–5.8 | 0.59–0.74 | |
| 24.1 | 22.6 | 11.9 | |
| 23.4–24.9 | 20.9–25.9 | 11.5–12.3 | |
| 11 | 4.2 | 18 |
Fig 2Each data were represented as mean ± SD (n = 6 for each group).
Results of hemodynamic parameters (MAP: mean arterial pressure; HR: heart rate; Dmax/t; Dmin/t) on Non-UHS rats after dosed with two folds ED50 of ET-26 HCl, propofol and etomidate. * P ˂ 0.05 versus propofol group.
The body weight and loss volume of blood (n = 6 for each group).
| Etomidate | ET-26 HCl | Propofol | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight(g) | 292.1±20.4 | 272.3±16.9 | 267.5±23.7 | NS |
| Loss volume(mL) | 7.7±0.8 | 7.4±0.4 | 7.1±0.8 | NS |
| Loss volume(mL/100g) | 2.6±0.3 | 2.6±0.2 | 2.7±0.1 | NS |
NS means no significant differences were observed among three groups.
Fig 3Each data were represented as mean ± SD.
Changes of hemodynamic parameters on UHS rats after injection with ED50 of ET-26 HCl (n = 6), propofol (n = 6 for each time point except: n = 4 at 15 min and n = 3 at 20 min after administration of propofol) and etomidate (n = 6).
* P ˂ 0.05 versus propofol group.
The arterial blood gas analysis results of rats before administration of test drugs (n = 6 for each group respectively) and 20 min after injection of ED50 of etomidate (n = 6), ET-26 HCl (n = 6) and propofol (n = 3) in a rat model of UHS (uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock).
| baseline | Etomidate | ET-26 HCl | Propofol | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH | 7.35±0.1 | 7.17±0.1 | 7.22±0.1 | 7.08±0.1 |
| PCO2(mmHg) | 34.3±8.5 | 16.2±9.8 | 20.6±11.6 | 28.6±12.3 |
| PO2(mmHg) | 91.6±12.2 | 127.3±17.2 | 117.6±7.9 | 119.4±23.4 |
| Hb(g/dL) | 14.1±0.9 | 12.9±0.9 | 12.5±0.9 | 11.9±1.2 |
| SO2(%) | 89.6±3.9 | 87.7±10.2 | 83.3±16.5 | 83.3±12.3 |
| Na+(mmol/L) | 140.5±1.4 | 138.8±0.8 | 141.1±1.1 | 139.8±1.4 |
| Ca2+(mmol/L) | 1.2±0.0 | 1.3±0.1 | 1.3±0.1 | 1.3±0.1 |
| Cl-(mmol/L) | 109.8±1.8 | 112.3±1.1 | 115.1±2.5 | 112.2±1.9 |
| Lac(mmol/L) | 2.9±1.8 | 12.8±1.8 | 9.3±1.82 | 10.8±1.9 |
| K+(mmol/L) | 3.8±0.4 | 5.6±1.3 | 6.3±1.2 | 6.1±1.1 |
aP ˂ 0.05 versus baseline
bP ˂ 0.05 versus etomidate
cP ˂ 0.05 versus ET-26 HCl
dP ˂ 0.05 versus propofol.