Literature DB >> 9856717

Population pharmacokinetics of midazolam administered by target controlled infusion for sedation following coronary artery bypass grafting.

K Zomorodi1, A Donner, J Somma, J Barr, R Sladen, J Ramsay, E Geller, S L Shafer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is commonly used for short-term postoperative sedation of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The purpose of this multicenter study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics and intersubject variability of midazolam in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 90 consenting patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled at three study centers. All subjects received sufentanil and midazolam via target-controlled infusions. After operation, midazolam was titrated to maintain deep sedation for at least 2 h. It was then titrated downward to decrease sedation for a minimum of 4 h more and was discontinued before tracheal extubation. Arterial blood samples were taken throughout the study and were assayed for midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam. Midazolam population pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using NONMEM. Cross-validation was used to estimate the performance of the model.
RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of midazolam were best described by a simple three-compartment mammillary model. Typical pharmacokinetic parameters were V1 = 32.2 l, V2 = 53 l, V3 = 245 l, Cl1 = 0.43 l/min, Cl2 = 0.56 l/min, and Cl3 = 0.39 l/min. The calculated elimination half-life was 15 h. The median absolute prediction error was 25%, with a bias of 1.4%. The performance in the cross-validation was similar. Midazolam metabolites were clinically insignificant in all patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The intersubject variability and predictability of the three-compartment pharmacokinetic model are similar to those of other intravenous anesthetic drugs. This multicenter study did not confirm previous studies of exceptionally large variability of midazolam pharmacokinetics when used for sedation in intensive care settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9856717     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199812000-00020

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


  12 in total

1.  Lumping of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models and a mechanistic derivation of classical compartmental models.

Authors:  Sabine Pilari; Wilhelm Huisinga
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Scaling of pharmacokinetics across paediatric populations: the lack of interpolative power of allometric models.

Authors:  Massimo Cella; Catherijne Knibbe; Saskia N de Wildt; Joop Van Gerven; Meindert Danhof; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of medications used for moderate sedation.

Authors:  Tong J Gan
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  Population pharmacokinetics of theophylline during paediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Authors:  Hussain Mulla; Fazal Nabi; Sanjiv Nichani; Graham Lawson; R K Firmin; David R Upton
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Cross-validation for nonlinear mixed effects models.

Authors:  Emily Colby; Eric Bair
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 6.  Monitored anaesthesia care in the elderly: guidelines and recommendations.

Authors:  Margaret Ekstein; Doron Gavish; Tiberiu Ezri; Avi A Weinbroum
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.923

7.  Efficacy of two types of palliative sedation therapy defined using intervention protocols: proportional vs. deep sedation.

Authors:  Kengo Imai; Tatsuya Morita; Naosuke Yokomichi; Masanori Mori; Akemi Shirado Naito; Hiroaki Tsukuura; Toshihiro Yamauchi; Takashi Kawaguchi; Kaori Fukuta; Satoshi Inoue
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

Authors:  Clemens R M Barends; Anthony Absalom; Baucke van Minnen; Arjan Vissink; Anita Visser
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of multimodal EEG-fNIRS signals in the loss and recovery of consciousness under sedation using midazolam and propofol.

Authors:  Seul-Ki Yeom; Dong-Ok Won; Seong In Chi; Kwang-Suk Seo; Hyun Jeong Kim; Klaus-Robert Müller; Seong-Whan Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Scaling clearance in paediatric pharmacokinetics: All models are wrong, which are useful?

Authors:  Eva Germovsek; Charlotte I S Barker; Mike Sharland; Joseph F Standing
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.