Literature DB >> 9856718

Population pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered by target controlled infusion in SICU patients after CABG surgery.

J Somma1, A Donner, K Zomorodi, R Sladen, J Ramsay, E Geller, S L Shafer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used commonly for sedation in the surgical intensive care unit. A suboptimal dosing regimen may lead to relative overdosing, which could result in delayed extubation and increased cost. This multicenter trial characterized midazolam pharmacodynamics in patients recovering from coronary artery bypass grafting.
METHODS: Three centers enrolled 90 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. All patients received sufentanil and midazolam via target-controlled infusion. After surgery, midazolam was titrated to a Ramsay sedation score of 5 for 2 h and then decreased to maintain a sedation score of 3 or 4 for at least another 4 h. Pharmacodynamic parameters were derived using NONMEM. The model was cross-validated to test performance.
RESULTS: The probability of a given level of sedation was related to the midazolam concentration by this equation: P(Sedation > or = ss) = Cn/(Cn + C(50,ss)n), where ss is the sedation score, C is the sum of the midazolam concentration and a term reflecting the dissipating effect of anesthesia: C = [midazolam] + theta x e(-Kt), where theta = 256 ng/ml and K = 0.19 h(-1). C(50,ss) values for Ramsay scores of 2 to 6 were 5.7, 71, 171, 260, and 659 ng/ml, respectively. The model predicted 57% of the data points correctly and 88% within one sedation score.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous reports of high interindividual variability in midazolam pharmacodynamics in patients in the surgical intensive care unit, these cross-validation results suggest that, when midazolam is administered using a target-controlled infusion device, the level of sedation can be predicted within 1 sedation score in 88% of patients based on the target midazolam concentration and the time since the conclusion of the anesthetic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9856718     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199812000-00021

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics.

Authors:  Erik Olofsen; Albert Dahan
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Population pharmacodynamic modelling of lorazepam- and midazolam-induced sedation upon long-term continuous infusion in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Eleonora L Swart; Klaas P Zuideveld; Joost de Jongh; Meindert Danhof; Lambertus G Thijs; Robert M J Strack van Schijndel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 3.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in anaesthesia.

Authors:  Pedro L Gambús; Iñaki F Trocóniz
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Prolonged Anesthetic Recovery after Continuous Infusion of Midazolam in 2 Domestic Cats (Felis catus).

Authors:  Urshulaa Dholakia; Reza Seddighi; Adesola Odunayo; Sherry K Cox; Elizabeth H Jones; Bruno H Pypendop
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 0.982

5.  Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of the analgesic effects of tramadol in pediatrics.

Authors:  María J Garrido; Walid Habre; Ferdinand Rombout; Iñaki F Trocóniz
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  An evaluation of remifentanil-sevoflurane response surface models in patients emerging from anesthesia: model improvement using effect-site sevoflurane concentrations.

Authors:  Ken B Johnson; Noah D Syroid; Dhanesh K Gupta; Sandeep C Manyam; Nathan L Pace; Cris D LaPierre; Talmage D Egan; Julia L White; Diane Tyler; Dwayne R Westenskow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Modelling acute tolerance to the EEG effect of two benzodiazepines.

Authors:  Harald Ihmsen; Sven Albrecht; Werner Hering; Jürgen Schüttler; Helmut Schwilden
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  An evaluation of remifentanil propofol response surfaces for loss of responsiveness, loss of response to surrogates of painful stimuli and laryngoscopy in patients undergoing elective surgery.

Authors:  Ken B Johnson; Noah D Syroid; Dhanesh K Gupta; Sandeep C Manyam; Talmage D Egan; Jeremy Huntington; Julia L White; Diane Tyler; Dwayne R Westenskow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  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 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.