| Literature DB >> 35928271 |
Yueyue Li1, Jingjie Li2, Yuhuan Shi1, Xuhui Zhou2, Wanqing Feng2, Lu Han1, Daqing Ma3, Hong Jiang2, Yongfang Yuan1.
Abstract
Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is very common in paediatric patients during recovery from general anaesthesia, but underlying mechanisms remain unknown. This prospective study was designed to profile preoperative urine metabolites and identify potential biomarkers that can predict the occurrence of EA.Entities:
Keywords: aromatic amino acids; emergence agitation; metabolomics; paediatric anaesthesia; prediction model; urine neurotransmitters
Year: 2022 PMID: 35928271 PMCID: PMC9343964 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.932776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
FIGURE 1CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Characteristics of post-operative emergence agitation (EA) and non-EA patients.
| Characteristic | EA group ( | Non-EA group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age(y) | 4.45 ± 1.12 | 4.97 ± 1.29 | 0.088 |
| Male, n (%) | 22 (66.7%) | 21 (63.6%) | 0.796 |
| Height, cm | 111.21 ± 8.12 | 115.06 ± 11.74 | 0.126 |
| Weight, kg | 20.84 ± 5.50 | 22.36 ± 7.09 | 0.333 |
| BMI | 16.59 ± 2.24 | 16.53 ± 2.45 | 0.913 |
| Surgical time, min | 26.85 ± 15.87 | 25.73 ± 14.11 | 0.763 |
| Anaesthesia duration, min | 37.70 ± 18.13 | 35.36 ± 16.40 | 0.585 |
| Midazolam premedication (mg kg−1) | 0.051 ± 0.011 | 0.048 ± 0.014 | 0.426 |
| Rocuronium bromide usage (mg kg−1) | 0.78 ± 0.16 | 0.79 ± 0.12 | 0.972 |
| Propofol induction (mg kg−1) | 2.30 ± 0.37 | 2.23 ± 0.29 | 0.370 |
| Fentanyl induction (μg kg−1) | 1.95 ± 0.24 | 2.06 ± 0.24 | 0.067 |
| Remifentanil maintenance (μg kg−1min−1) | 0.097 ± 0.082 | 0.073 ± 0.086 | 0.258 |
| Bolus of fentanyl dosage (μg kg−1) | 1.38 ± 1.05 | 1.30 ± 0.56 | 0.727 |
| MAC concentration | 0.62 ± 0.32 | 0.62 ± 0.15 | 0.942 |
| PAED score | 17 (18–15) | 4 (7–3) | <0.001 |
| FLACC score | 2 (4–0.5) | 0 (0–0) | <0.001 |
| Case of PONV | 2 (6.1%) | 1 (3.0%) | 1.000 |
| Case of cough/laryngospasm/bronchospasm | 5 (15.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.063 |
BMI: body mass index; MAC: minimum alveolar concentration; PAED: Paediatric Assessment of Emergence Delirium; FLACC: Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale; PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting.
PAED and FLACC scores were reported as median (interquartile range).
PAED and FLACC scores were reported as median (interquartile range).
Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare PAED and FLACC scores between EA and non-EA groups.
Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare PAED and FLACC scores between EA and non-EA, groups.
FIGURE 2Score plots of OPLS-DA for the urine metabolomics of emergence agitation (EA) versus the non-EA patients; (A) the positive ionization mode; (B) the negative ionization mode. The permutation test (200 tests total) for the OPLS-DA model; (C) in the positive ionization mode, R2Y and Q2Y were 0.81 and 0.40, respectively; (D) in the negative ionization mode, R2Y and Q2Y were 0.71 and 0.22, respectively.
Potential biomarkers of urine samples from postoperative emergence agitation (EA) and non-EA patients.
| Cluster | Metabolites | RT (min) | Measured m/z | VIP | FC |
| FDR | Pathway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amino acid and metabolites | L-Tyrosine | 1.53 | 199.1073 | 2.47 | 2.52 | <0.001 | 0.004 | Tyrosine metabolism |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 1.23 | 121.0645 | 2.10 | 1.62 | <0.001 | 0.006 | Phenylalanine metabolism | |
| Dopamine 3-sulphate | 1.18 | 216.0321 | 1.95 | 1.56 | 0.001 | 0.013 | Tyrosine metabolism | |
| 4-(2-Amino-3-hydroxyphenyl)-2,4-dioxobutanoate | 4.33 | 206.0443 | 1.92 | 1.71 | <0.001 | 0.011 | Tryptophan metabolism | |
| Phenylpyruvic acid | 1.07 | 182.0809 | 1.68 | 1.59 | 0.003 | 0.021 | Phenylalanine metabolism | |
| Xanthurenic acid | 4.93 | 228.0262 | 1.68 | 1.93 | 0.008 | 0.033 | Tryptophan metabolism | |
| 3-Hydroxyanthranilic acid | 3.10 | 154.0496 | 1.56 | 1.69 | 0.014 | 0.045 | Tryptophan metabolism | |
| 3-Hydroxykynurenine | 1.01 | 225.0865 | 1.51 | 1.64 | 0.005 | 0.026 | Tryptophan metabolism | |
| N′-Formylkynurenine | 3.08 | 237.0864 | 1.35 | 1.61 | 0.017 | 0.049 | Tryptophan metabolism | |
| Vitamin | Pyridoxamine | 2.97 | 169.0968 | 2.07 | 1.77 | <0.001 | 0.004 | Vitamin B6 metabolism |
| Nucleosides | 5′-Methylthioadenosine | 4.43 | 298.0960 | 2.05 | 1.69 | 0.001 | 0.013 | Cysteine and methionine metabolism |
| Organic nitrogen | Porphobilinogen | 3.49 | 227.1021 | 1.88 | 2.10 | 0.002 | 0.017 | Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism |
| Acylcarnitine | 3-Methylglutarylcarnitine | 3.56 | 290.1590 | 1.70 | 2.02 | 0.006 | 0.027 | Fatty acid metabolism |
| Hexanoylcarnitine | 6.31 | 260.1850 | 1.61 | 1.57 | 0.004 | 0.025 | Fatty acid metabolism | |
| Isobutyryl-L-carnitine | 3.67 | 232.1537 | 1.37 | 1.55 | 0.013 | 0.044 | Fatty acid metabolism | |
| Purine derivative | 7-Methylxanthine | 1.07 | 167.0560 | 1.35 | 3.18 | 0.012 | 0.041 | Caffeine metabolism |
VIP: variable importance in the projection in the OPLS-DA model. Metabolites are sorted by their VIP value under each cluster.
Fold change (FC) was calculated from the normalized peak area between the EA group vs. the non-EA group.
The p-value was calculated from Student’s t-test.
The false discovery rate (FDR) was calculated from the “fdrtool” package in the R environment.
FIGURE 3Heat map of differential metabolites between emergence agitation (EA) and non-EA patients.
FIGURE 4Performance of L-tyrosine to predict emergence agitation (EA) with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and further internal cross-validation.