Hao Dong1,2, Fengjiang Zhang3, Jing Chen1, Qiwen Yu1,2, Yinbo Zhong3, Jun Liu1,2, Min Yan3, Xing Chen1,2. 1. From the Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. Research Institute of Zhejiang University-Taizhou, Taizhou, Zhejiang, China. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anesthetic side effects of propofol still occur in clinical practice because no reliable monitoring techniques are available. In this regard, continuous monitoring of propofol in breath is a promising method, yet it remains infeasible because there is large variation in the blood/exhaled gas partial pressure ratio (RBE) in humans. Further evaluations of the influences of breathing-related factors on RBE would mitigate this variation. METHODS: Correlations were analyzed between breathing-related factors (tidal volume [TV], breath frequency [BF], and minute ventilation [VM]) and RBE in 46 patients. Furthermore, a subset of 10 patients underwent pulmonary function tests (PFTs), and the parameters of the PFTs were then compared with the RBE. We employed a 1-phase exponential decay model to characterize the influence of VM on RBE. We also proposed a modified RBE (RBEM) that was not affected by the different breathing patterns of the patients. The blood concentration of propofol was predicted from breath monitoring using RBEM and RBE. RESULTS: We found a significant negative correlation (R = -0.572; P < .001) between VM and RBE (N = 46). No significant correlation was shown between PFTs and RBE in the subset (N = 10). RBEM demonstrated a standard Gaussian distribution (mean, 1.000; standard deviation [SD], 0.308). Moreover, the predicted propofol concentrations based on breath monitoring matched well with the measured blood concentrations. The 90% prediction band was limited to within ±1 μg·mL. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction of propofol concentration in blood was more accurate using RBEM than when using RBE and could provide reference information for anesthesiologists. Moreover, the present study provided a general approach for assessing the influence of relevant physiological factors and will inform noninvasive and accurate breath assessment of volatile drugs or metabolites in blood.
BACKGROUND: The anesthetic side effects of propofol still occur in clinical practice because no reliable monitoring techniques are available. In this regard, continuous monitoring of propofol in breath is a promising method, yet it remains infeasible because there is large variation in the blood/exhaled gas partial pressure ratio (RBE) in humans. Further evaluations of the influences of breathing-related factors on RBE would mitigate this variation. METHODS: Correlations were analyzed between breathing-related factors (tidal volume [TV], breath frequency [BF], and minute ventilation [VM]) and RBE in 46 patients. Furthermore, a subset of 10 patients underwent pulmonary function tests (PFTs), and the parameters of the PFTs were then compared with the RBE. We employed a 1-phase exponential decay model to characterize the influence of VM on RBE. We also proposed a modified RBE (RBEM) that was not affected by the different breathing patterns of the patients. The blood concentration of propofol was predicted from breath monitoring using RBEM and RBE. RESULTS: We found a significant negative correlation (R = -0.572; P < .001) between VM and RBE (N = 46). No significant correlation was shown between PFTs and RBE in the subset (N = 10). RBEM demonstrated a standard Gaussian distribution (mean, 1.000; standard deviation [SD], 0.308). Moreover, the predicted propofol concentrations based on breath monitoring matched well with the measured blood concentrations. The 90% prediction band was limited to within ±1 μg·mL. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction of propofol concentration in blood was more accurate using RBEM than when using RBE and could provide reference information for anesthesiologists. Moreover, the present study provided a general approach for assessing the influence of relevant physiological factors and will inform noninvasive and accurate breath assessment of volatile drugs or metabolites in blood.