Effect-site targeted patient-controlled sedation with propofol: comparison with anaesthetist administration for colonoscopy

The authors studied the influence of age on the pharmacodynamics of propofol, including characterization of the relation between plasma concentration and the time course of drug effect. The authors evaluated healthy volunteers aged 25-81 yr. A bolus dose (2 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg in persons older than 65 yr) and an infusion (25, 50, 100, or 200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) of the older or the new (containing EDTA) formulation of propofol were given on each of two different study days. The propofol concentration was determined in frequent arterial samples. The electroencephalogram (EEG) was used to measure drug effect. A statistical technique called semilinear canonical correlation was used to select components of the EEG power spectrum that correlated optimally with the effect-site concentration. The effect-site concentration was related to drug effect with a biphasic pharmacodynamic model. The plasma effect-site equilibration rate constant was estimated parametrically. Estimates of this rate constant were validated by comparing the predicted time of peak effect with the time of peak EEG effect. The probability of being asleep, as a function of age, was determined from steady state concentrations after 60 min of propofol infusion. Twenty-four volunteers completed the study. Three parameters of the biphasic pharmacodynamic model were correlated linearly with age. The plasma effect-site equilibration rate constant was 0.456 min(-1). The predicted time to peak effect after bolus injection ranging was 1.7 min. The time to peak effect assessed visually was 1.6 min (range, 1-2.4 min). The steady state observations showed increasing sensitivity to propofol in elderly patients, with C50 values for loss of consciousness of 2.35, 1.8, and 1.25 microg/ml in volunteers who were 25, 50, and 75 yr old, respectively. Semilinear canonical correlation defined a new measure of propofol effect on the EEG, the canonical univariate parameter for propofol. Using this parameter, propofol plasma effect-site equilibration is faster than previously reported. This fast onset was confirmed by inspection of the EEG data. Elderly patients are more sensitive to the hypnotic and EEG effects of propofol than are younger persons.

The usefulness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids for postoperative analgesia is not well defined. We systematically searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to January 2000) for randomised trials comparing opioid-based PCA with the same opioid given intramuscularly, intravenously, or subcutaneously. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data, relative risks (RR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for dichotomous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed and random effects models. Data from 32 trials were analysed: 22 (1139 patients) were with morphine, five (682) with pethidine, three (184) with piritramide, one (47) with nalbuphine and one (20) with tramadol. In three morphine and one pethidine trial (352 patients), more patients preferred PCA (89.7% vs. 65.8%, RR 1.41 (95%CI 1.11 to 1.80), NNT 4.2). Combined dichotomous data on pain intensity and relief, and the need for rescue analgesics from eight morphine, one pethidine, one piritramide, and one nalbuphine trial (691 patients), were in favour of PCA (RR 1.22 (1.00 to 1.50), NNT 8). In two morphine trials (152), pulmonary complications were more frequently prevented with PCA (100% vs. 93.3%, RR 1.07 (1.01 to 1.14), NNT 15). There was equivalence for cumulative opioid consumption, pain scores, duration of hospital stay, and opioid-related adverse effects. These trials provide some evidence that in the postoperative pain setting, PCA with opioids, compared with conventional opioid treatment, improve analgesia and decrease the risk of pulmonary complications, and that patients prefer them.

A variety of methods have been used to quantify aspects of recovery after anesthesia. Most are narrowly focused, are not patient-rated, and have not been validated. We therefore set out to develop a patient-rated quality of recovery score. We constructed a 61-item questionnaire that asked individuals (patients and relatives, medical and nursing staff; total n = 136) to rate various postoperative items describing features a patient may experience postoperatively. The most highly ranked items were included in a final nine-point index score, which we called the "QoR Score." We then studied two cohorts of surgical patients (n = 449). There was good convergent validity between the QoR Score and the visual analog scale score (rho = 0.55, P < 0.0001). Discriminant construct validity was supported by comparing resultant QoR Scores in patients undergoing day-stay, minor, and major surgery (P = 0.008), as well as a negative correlation with duration of hospital stay (rho = -0.20, P < 0.0001), and, using multivariate regression, demonstrating a significant negative relationship between QoR Score and female gender (P = 0.048) and older age (P = 0.041). There was also good interrater agreement (rho = 0.55, P < 0.0001), test-retest reliability (median rho = 0.61, P < 0.0001), and internal consistency (alpha = 0.57 and 0.90, P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference between the groups of patients recovering from major and minor surgery (P < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the QoR Score has good validity, reliability, and clinical acceptability in patients undergoing many types of surgery.