31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A new supraglottic device, the LMA-Supreme™, has recently become available for clinical use. Information on anaesthetic and co-adjuvant requirements for insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ is limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimal effect-site concentration of propofol in 50 % (EC 50) of adults necessary for successful insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ and to examine remifentanil’s effect on propofol requirements.

          Methods

          Fifty-eight elective patients (aged 18–60 years; ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status classification I and II) scheduled for day surgery were randomly assigned to one of two groups: propofol with saline or propofol with remifentanil. Anaesthesia was induced by target-controlled infusion according to predetermined effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil (5 ng.mL −1). The EC 50 was calculated using Dixon’s up-and-down method. Ten minutes following drug administration, LMA-Supreme™ insertion was attempted without the use of muscle relaxant drugs.

          Results

          In the propofol + saline group, the EC 50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 6.32 ± 0.67 μg.mL −1 (95 % CI, 5.69–6.94 μg.mL −1). With the addition of remifentanil at an effect-site concentration of 5 ng.mL −1, the EC 50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 2.50 ± 0.80 μg.mL −1 (95 % CI, 1.82–3.17 μg.mL −1; p < 0.0001).

          Conclusions

          The propofol requirement for smooth insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ was 60 % less when remifentanil (5 ng.mL −1) was co-administered.

          Clinical trial registration

          Identified as NCT01974648 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers.

          Unresolved issues with propofol include whether the pharmacokinetics are linear with dose, are influenced by method of administration (bolus vs. infusion), or are influenced by age. Recently, a new formulation of propofol emulsion, containing disodium edetate (EDTA), was introduced in the United States. Addition of EDTA was found by the manufacturer to significantly reduce bacterial growth. This study investigated the influences of method of administration, infusion rate, patient covariates, and EDTA on the pharmacokinetics of propofol. Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged 26-81 yr were given a bolus dose of propofol, followed 1 h later by a 60-min infusion. Each volunteer was randomly assigned to an infusion rate of 25, 50, 100, or 200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Each volunteer was studied twice under otherwise identical circumstances: once receiving propofol without EDTA and once receiving propofol with EDTA. The influence of the method of administration and of the volunteer covariates was explored by fitting a three-compartment mamillary model to the data. The influence of EDTA was investigated by direct comparison of the measured concentrations in both sessions. The concentrations of propofol with and without EDTA were not significantly different. The concentration measurements after the bolus dose were significantly underpredicted by the parameters obtained just from the infusion data. The kinetics of propofol were linear within the infusion range of 25-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Age was a significant covariate for Volume2 and Clearance2, as were weight, height, and lean body mass for the metabolic clearance. These results demonstrate that method of administration (bolus vs. infusion), but not EDTA, influences the pharmacokinetics of propofol. Within the clinically relevant range, the kinetics of propofol during infusions are linear regarding infusion rate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development.

            Previous studies have reported conflicting results concerning the influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new short-acting opioid remifentanil. Sixty-five healthy adults (38 men and 27 women) ages 20 to 85 y received remifentanil by constant-rate infusion of 1 to 8 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 for 4 to 20 min. Frequent arterial blood samples were drawn and assayed for remifentanil concentration. The electroencephalogram was used as a measure of drug effect. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling was performed using the software package NONMEM. The influence of volunteer covariates were analyzed using a generalized additive model. The performances of the simple (without covariates) and complex (with covariates) models were evaluated prospectively in an additional 15 healthy participants ages 41 to 84 y. The parameters for the simple three-compartment pharmacokinetic model were V1 = 4.98 l, V2 = 9.01 l, V3 = 6.54 l, Cl1 = 2.46 l/min, Cl2 = 1.69 l/min, and Cl3 = 0.065 l/min. Age and lean body mass were significant covariates. From the ages of 20 to 85 y, V1 and Cl1 decreased by approximately 25% and 33%, respectively. The parameters for the simple sigmoid Emax pharmacodynamic model were Ke0 = 0.516 min-1, E0 = 20 Hz, Emax = 5.62 Hz, EC50 = 11.2 ng/ml, and gamma = 2.51. Age was a significant covariate of EC50 and Ke0, with both decreasing by approximately 50% for the age range studied. The complex pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model performed better than did the simple model when applied prospectively. This study identified (1) an effect of age on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil; (2) an effect of lean body mass on the pharmacokinetic parameters; and (3) no influence of gender on any pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameter.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method.

              Experiments are conducted to estimate the threshold for an all-or-none response. Threshold is defined to be a point above which 50% of the subjects will respond and below which 50% of the subjects will not respond. Examples are death, death in a fixed time period, shock, fibrillation, emesis. Staircase designs, in particular up-and-down trials, produce median (ED50) estimates of given standard error with as few as one-fifth the number of subjects as the traditional designs with preset numbers of tests at each of several levels of stimulus. We discuss these estimates and their efficiency as well as procedures to estimate standard deviation and its use in designing up-and-down trails. The advantages in using several short series in factorial experiments are presented. Suggestions are given for minimizing the complications of sequential designs. Case studies indicate the efficiency of the design for various applications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mati@plagaro.net
                emiliabastida@gmail.com
                s.agusti@hotmail.com
                maiteportas@gmail.com
                consuelojdf@gmail.com
                mlopezgi@yahoo.es
                Journal
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2253
                6 October 2015
                6 October 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 131
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain
                [ ]Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
                [ ]Department of Anaesthesia, Head Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
                Article
                115
                10.1186/s12871-015-0115-8
                4595052
                26438179
                b3a0237c-42d3-4e4f-9688-521db3ae2484
                © Zaballos et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 December 2014
                : 24 September 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                anaesthetics,intravenous,propofol,remifentanil,equipment,laryngeal mask airway supreme

                Comments

                Comment on this article