Search

Background: Concentration effect relationships are commonly described with a direct response model as for example the sigmoid E(max) model with one effect compartment as site of action. In this study we investigated whether models with more than one effect site, or indirect response, or counter-regulatory response models may be more appropriate for modelling the propofol effect on arterial blood pressure., Methods: Nine young healthy volunteers received propofol as target controlled infusion with predefined increasing and decreasing plasma target concentrations. Propofol concentrations were determined from arterial blood samples. Arterial blood pressure was measured invasively at radial artery site. Pharmacokinetic/-pharmacodynamic modelling was performed by population analysis with MONOLIX, testing different direct, indirect and counter-regulatory response models., Results: Propofol plasma concentrations were well described by a three-compartment model. The propofol effect on arterial blood pressure was best described by a direct sigmoid E(max) model with two effect site compartments., Conclusions: Two effect sites were needed to describe the propofol effect on arterial blood pressure. This may reflect different pathways of arterial blood pressure response to propofol., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Target controlled infusion (TCI) with sufentanil is usually performed using the Gepts model, which was derived from patients undergoing general surgery. It is, however, known that pharmacokinetics of sufentanil can be changed during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We tested whether TCI during coronary artery bypass surgery with CPB produces constant total, unbound sufentanil concentration-time course or both., Methods: After IRB approval, written informed consent was obtained from 38 male patients (48-74 yr) undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Anaesthesia was managed with propofol and TCI of sufentanil, using the Gepts model, targeting plasma concentrations of 0.4 (n=18) or 0.8 ng ml(-1) (n=20). Arterial blood samples were taken before, during, and after CPB. Total and unbound sufentanil concentrations were measured by HPLC with tandem mass spectrometry. The accuracy of the TCI model was assessed by the prediction error, and a pharmacokinetic model was determined by population analysis., Results: The median prediction error of the TCI with the Gepts model before, during, and after CPB was 59.6, 3.9, and -10.4%, respectively. The unbound sufentanil concentrations increased significantly during CPB. Pharmacokinetic modelling showed an increase in elimination and intercompartmental clearance after initiation of CPB., Conclusions: Neither total nor unbound sufentanil concentrations remained constant when performing a TCI with the Gepts model in coronary artery bypass surgery with CPB. A pharmacokinetic model derived from patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB might improve the performance of TCI in this population.

Background: Today, propofol or 2,6-diisopropylphenol is the anesthetic mainly used for monitored anesthetic care sedation and during intravenous anesthesia. The formulation, a lipid macroemulsion, shows several disadvantages. Therefore, during the past years considerable scientific effort has been undertaken to find either a better formulation or a prodrug of propofol. Fospropofol is the first propofol prodrug that has been intensively studied in man. It has been licensed in 2008 by the FDA for monitored anesthetic care sedation., Objectives and Methods: This review describes first published study results of fospropofol with regard to its pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, drug safety, tolerability and drug side effects. Using a Medline search all published articles and abstracts containing the words fospropofol or GPI 15715 were included., Results and Conclusion: As the impact of an errorness drug assay for propofol liberated from fospropofol is not exactly defined, no clear conclusions can be drawn from the first published pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies. Fospropofol was well tolerated in the first two clinical studies and no serious side effects were reported. After characterization of the true pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics profile, fospropofol, an aqueous solution, has the potential to favorably compare with benzodiazepines for procedural sedation and also may be used for long-term sedation and intravenous anesthesia.

Background: This study describes a pharmacodynamic model during general anaesthesia in children relating the bispectral index (BIS) response to the anaesthetic dosing of propofol, fentanyl, and remifentanil., Methods: BIS, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation scores, and anaesthetic protocols from 59 children aged 1-16 yr undergoing general surgery were considered for the study. Anaesthesia was performed with propofol, fentanyl, and remifentanil. A sigmoid model assuming additive interaction of propofol, fentanyl, and remifentanil was fitted to individual BIS as effect variable. The pharmacodynamic parameters were estimated by non-linear regression analysis. The ability of BIS to predict anaesthetic drug effect was quantified by the prediction probability Pk., Results: BIS started at a baseline of 90 (9), decreased during induction to 30 (14) and remained at 57 (10) during anaesthesia. BIS predicted the anaesthetic drug effect with a Pk of 0.79 (0.08). The EC(50 Propofol) and the k(e0 Propofol) were 5.2 (2.7) microg ml(-1) and 0.60 (0.45) min(-1), respectively. The k(e0 Propofol) decreased from approximately 0.91 min(-1) at 1 yr to 0.15 min(-1) at 16 yr. The EC(50 Remifentanil), k(e0 Remifentanil), EC(50 Fentanyl), and the k(e0 Fentanyl) were 24.1 (13.0) ng ml(-1), 0.71 (0.32) min(-1), 8.6 (7.4) ng ml(-1), and 0.28 (0.46) min(-1), respectively., Conclusions: The effect equilibration half-time of propofol in children was age dependent. The pharmacodynamics of fentanyl and remifentanil in children were similar to those reported in adults. The BIS showed a close relationship to the modelled effect-site concentration, and therefore, it may serve as a measure of anaesthetic drug effect in children older than 1 yr.

Background: Clinical benefits of measuring processed EEG during anaesthesia in adults, such as improved recovery and reduced risk of awareness, may also be valid in children. This study evaluated a rational selection of EEG variables as measures of arousal during surgical anaesthesia in children., Methods: Sixty children undergoing surgical anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil were enrolled. The performance of 33 single EEG variables and bispectral index (BIS) was assessed by simultaneous analysis of prediction probability (Pk) of Children's Hospital of Wisconsin Sedation Scores and their signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Variables performing best in Pk and SNR analysis were selected as potential measures of arousal. Their performance was investigated in five age groups, 0-1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-8, and 8-13 yr., Results: Single EEG variables such as relative power from frequency bands 13-20 and 20-26 Hz, SEF95, and approximate entropy performed best with Pk>0.59 and SNR>5.50. The Pk and SNR of BIS were 0.71 and 15.76, respectively. Their performance was significantly better in children aged 1-13 yr than in 0-1 yr., Conclusions: BIS may provide a measure of arousal during propofol anaesthesia in children, but its accuracy is less in infants younger than 12 months. Single EEG variables such as high-frequency components of EEG, SEF95, and approximate entropy may be of limited value to detect arousal in the individual paediatric patient.

Background: Propofol is nowadays available in various lipid formulations. We compared two different propofol formulations with respect to pharmacodynamics, using the EEG and clinical signs., Materials and Methods: Ten volunteers received Diprivan 1% and Propofol 1% MCT Fresenius as a computer controlled infusion with increasing propofol target concentrations. A sigmoid E(max) model with effect compartment was estimated for the median frequency of the EEG power spectrum, based on measured arterial propofol plasma concentrations. Clinical pharmacodynamics were assessed by reaction on acoustic stimuli, eyelid reflex and corneal reflex., Results: The drugs did not differ in pharmacodynamics with respect to EEG (EC(50) 2.1+/-0.6 for Diprivan and 2.1+/-0.5 microg/ml for Propofol Fresenius) and clinical signs. The pharmacodynamic model was characterized by a steep concentration effect relationship and a distinct hysteresis between propofol plasma concentration and effect (k(e0) 0.12+/-0.04 and 0.12+/-0.5 min(-1))., Conclusions: The investigated lipid formulations have no influence on the pharmacodynamics of propofol.

Background: Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol was initially realized as a device for prefilled syringes (Diprifusor). New TCI systems can be used with any propofol formulation. We compared two different propofol formulations with respect to accuracy of TCI and pharmacokinetics., Materials and Methods: A total of 10 volunteers received Diprivan 1% and Propofol 1% MCT Fresenius as TCI using the pharmacokinetic model of the Diprifusor. The prediction error was determined from measured arterial concentrations. A three-compartment model was fitted to the concentration data., Results: The median prediction error and the median absolute prediction error were -1.4% and 23.3% for Diprivan, and -5.9% and 17.8% for Propofol Fresenius. The drugs did not differ in pharmacokinetics but showed a smaller central volume of distribution than used for infusion control., Conclusions: The pharmacokinetic model of Diprifusor can also be used for TCI of Propofol Fresenius. The large volume of distribution in this model may cause an overshoot in concentration.

Background: GPI 15715 is a new water-soluble prodrug that is hydrolyzed to release propofol. The objectives of this crossover study in volunteers were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GPI 15715 in comparison with propofol emulsion., Methods: In two separate sessions, nine healthy male volunteers (19-35 yr, 70-86 kg) received GPI 15715 and propofol emulsion as a target controlled infusion over 60 min. In the first 20 min, the propofol target concentration increased linearly to 5 microg/ml. Subsequently, the targets were reduced to 3 microg/ml and 1.5 microg/ml for 20 min each. The plasma concentrations of GPI 15715 and propofol were measured from arterial and venous blood samples up to 24 h and pharmacokinetics were analyzed. The pharmacodynamic effect was measured by the median frequency of the power spectrum of the electroencephalogram, and a sigmoid model with effect compartment was fitted to the data., Results: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed a different disposition function and especially larger volumes of distribution. The propofol effect site concentration for half maximum effect was 2.0 +/- 0.5 microg/ml for GPI 15715 and 3.0 +/- 0.7 microg/ml for propofol emulsion (P < 0.05). Propofol from GPI 15715 did not show a hysteresis between plasma concentration and effect., Conclusions: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed different pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, particularly a higher potency with respect to concentration. These differences may indicate an influence of the formulation.