Search

Background: The population pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane with or without opioids were compared using the endpoints no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, tolerance to tetanic stimulus, and two versions of a processed electroencephalographic measure, the Patient State Index (Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2)., Methods: This is a reanalysis of previously published data. Volunteers received four anesthesia sessions, each with different drug combinations of propofol or sevoflurane, with or without remifentanil. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to study the relationship between drug concentrations, clinical endpoints, and Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2., Results: The C50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation for propofol (µg · ml) and sevoflurane (vol %; relative standard error [%]) were 1.62 (7.00)/0.64 (4.20), 1.85 (6.20)/0.90 (5.00), and 2.82 (15.5)/0.91 (10.0), respectively. The C50 values for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 were 1.63 µg · ml (3.7) and 1.22 vol % (3.1) for propofol and sevoflurane. Only for sevoflurane was a significant difference found in the pharmacodynamic model for Patient State Index-2 compared with Patient State Index-1. The pharmacodynamic models for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 as a predictor for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tetanic stimulation were indistinguishable, with Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane of 46.7 (5.1)/68 (3.0), 41.5 (4.1)/59.2 (3.6), and 29.5 (12.9)/61.1 (8.1), respectively. Post hoc C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were perfectly correlated (correlation coefficient = 1) for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout. Post hoc C50 and Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane for tolerance to tetanic stimulation were independent within an individual (correlation coefficient = 0)., Conclusions: The pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane were described on both population and individual levels using a clinical score and the Patient State Index. Patient State Index-2 has an improved performance at higher sevoflurane concentrations, and the relationship to probability of responsiveness depends on the drug used but is unaffected for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2.

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with modest analgesic efficacy, whereas remifentanil is an opioid analgesic with modest sedative potency. Synergy is often observed when sedative-hypnotics are combined with opioid analgesics in anesthetic practice. A three-phase crossover trial was conducted to study the pharmacodynamic interaction between remifentanil and dexmedetomidine., Methods: After institutional review board approval, 30 age- and sex- stratified healthy volunteers were studied. The subjects received consecutive stepwise increasing target-controlled infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and remifentanil with a fixed dexmedetomidine background concentration. Drug effects were measured using binary (yes or no) endpoints: no response to calling the subject by name, tolerance of shaking the patient while shouting the name ("shake and shout"), tolerance of deep trapezius squeeze, and tolerance of laryngoscopy. The drug effect was measured using the electroencephalogram-derived "Patient State Index." Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling related the administered dexmedetomidine and remifentanil concentration to these observed effects., Results: The binary endpoints were correlated with dexmedetomidine concentrations, with increasing concentrations required for increasing stimulus intensity. Estimated model parameters for the dexmedetomidine EC50 were 2.1 [90% CI, 1.6 to 2.8], 9.2 [6.8 to 13], 24 [16 to 35], and 35 [23 to 56] ng/ml, respectively. Age was inversely correlated with dexmedetomidine EC50 for all four stimuli. Adding remifentanil did not increase the probability of tolerance of any of the stimuli. The cerebral drug effect as measured by the Patient State Index was best described by the Hierarchical interaction model with an estimated dexmedetomidine EC50 of 0.49 [0.20 to 0.99] ng/ml and remifentanil EC50 of 1.6 [0.87 to 2.7] ng/ml., Conclusions: Low dexmedetomidine concentrations (EC50 of 0.49 ng/ml) are required to induce sedation as measured by the Patient State Index. Sensitivity to dexmedetomidine increases with age. Despite falling asleep, the majority of subjects remained arousable by calling the subject's name, "shake and shout," or a trapezius squeeze, even when reaching supraclinical concentrations. Adding remifentanil does not alter the likelihood of response to graded stimuli.

Background: Neural inertia is defined as the tendency of the central nervous system to resist transitions between arousal states. This phenomenon has been observed in mice and Drosophila anaesthetized with volatile anaesthetics: the effect-site concentration required to induce anaesthesia in 50% of the population (C 50 ) was significantly higher than the effect-site concentration for 50% of the population to recover from anaesthesia. We evaluated this phenomenon in humans using propofol or sevoflurane (both with or without remifentanil) as anaesthetic agents., Methods: Thirty-six healthy volunteers received four sessions of anaesthesia with different drug combinations in a step-up/step-down design. Propofol or sevoflurane was administered with or without remifentanil. Serum concentrations of propofol and remifentanil were measured from arterial blood samples. Loss and return of responsiveness (LOR-ROR), response to pain (PAIN), Patient State Index (PSI) and spectral edge frequency (SEF) were modeled with NONMEM®., Results: For propofol, the C 50 for induction and recovery of anaesthesia was not significantly different across the different endpoints. For sevoflurane, for all endpoints except SEF, significant differences were found. For some endpoints (LOR and PAIN) the difference was significant only when sevoflurane was combined with remifentanil., Conclusions: Our results nuance earlier findings with volatile anaesthetics in mice and Drosophila. Methodological aspects of the study, such as the measured endpoint, influence the detection of neural inertia. A more thorough definition of neural inertia, with a robust methodological framework for clinical studies is required to advance our knowledge of this phenomenon., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT 02043938., (Copyright © 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)