Dataset Information

Male patients require higher optimal effect-site concentrations of propofol during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 ?g/kg.

ABSTRACT: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an anesthetic drug may be influenced by gender. The purpose of this study was to compare effect-site half maximal effective concentrations (EC50) of propofol in male and female patients during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 ?g/kg without muscle relaxants.Forty patients, aged 20-46 years of ASA physical status I or II, were allocated to one of two groups by gender (20 patients per group). After the infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.5 ?g/kg over 2 min, anesthesia was induced with a pre-determined effect-site concentration of propofol by target controlled infusion. Effect-site EC50 values of propofol for successful i-gel insertion were determined using the modified Dixon's up-and-down method.Mean effect-site EC50 ± SD of propofol for successful i-gel insertion was significantly higher for men than women (5.46 ± 0.26 ?g/ml vs. 3.82 ± 0.34 ?g/ml, p < 0.01). The EC50 of propofol in men was approximately 40% higher than in women. Using isotonic regression with a bootstrapping approach, the estimated EC50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was also higher in men [5.32 (4.45-6.20) ?g/ml vs. 3.75 (3.05-4.43) ?g/ml]. The estimated EC95 (95% confidence interval) of propofol in men and women were 5.93 (4.72-6.88) ?g/ml and 4.52 (3.02-5.70) ?g/ml, respectively.During i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 ?g/kg without muscle relaxant, male patients had higher effect-site EC50 for propofol using Schnider's model. Based on the results of this study, patient gender should be considered when determining the optimal dose of propofol during supraglottic airway insertion.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02268656. Registered August 26, 2014.

SUBMITTER: Choi JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4804608 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Male patients require higher optimal effect-site concentrations of propofol during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg.

Choi Jung Ju JJ Kim Ji Young JY Lee Dongchul D Chang Young Jin YJ Cho Noo Ree NR Kwak Hyun Jeong HJ

BMC anesthesiology 20160322

<h4>Background</h4>The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an anesthetic drug may be influenced by gender. The purpose of this study was to compare effect-site half maximal effective concentrations (EC50) of propofol in male and female patients during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg without muscle relaxants.<h4>Methods</h4>Forty patients, aged 20-46 years of ASA physical status I or II, were allocated to one of two groups by gender (20 patients per group). After the infusion ...[more]

PMID: 27004426

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown.MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 μg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months.ResultsOf 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 μg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 μg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgery and diseases modify inflammatory responses and the immune system. Anesthetic agents also have effects on the human immune system but the responses they induce may be altered or masked by the surgical procedures or underlying illnesses. The aim of this study was to assess how single-drug dexmedetomidine and propofol anesthesia without any surgical intervention alter acute immunological biomarkers in healthy subjects. METHODS:Thirty-five healthy, young male subjects were anesthetized using increasing concentrations of dexmedetomidine (n = 18) or propofol (n = 17) until loss of responsiveness (LOR) was detected. The treatment allocation was randomized. Multi-parametric immunoassays for the detection of 48 cytokines, chemokines and growth factors were used. Concentrations were determined at baseline and at the highest drug concentration for each subject. RESULTS:The changes in the concentration of eotaxin (decrease after dexmedetomidine) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF, increase after propofol) were statistically significantly different between the groups. Significant changes were detected within both groups; the concentrations of monocyte chemotactic protein 1, chemokine ligand 27 and macrophage migration inhibitory factor were lower in both groups after the drug administration. Dexmedetomidine decreased the concentration of eotaxin, interleukin-18, interleukin-2Rα, stem cell factor, stem cell growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor, and propofol decreased significantly the levels of hepatocyte growth factor, IFN-γ-induced protein 10 and monokine induced by IFN-γ, and increased the levels of interleukin-17, interleukin-5, interleukin-7 and PDGF. CONCLUSIONS:Dexmedetomidine seemed to have an immunosuppressive effect on the immune system whereas propofol seemed to induce mixed pro- and anti-inflammatory effects on the immune system. The choice of anesthetic agent could be relevant when treating patients with compromised immunological defense mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Before subject enrollment, the study was registered in the European Clinical Trials database (EudraCT number 2013-001496-21, The Neural Mechanisms of Anesthesia and Human Consciousness) and in ClinicalTrials.gov (Principal Investigator: Harry Scheinin, number NCT01889004, The Neural Mechanisms of Anesthesia and Human Consciousness, Part 2, on the 23rd of June 2013).

Project description:BackgroundVasopressors are frequently used to increase blood pressure in order to ensure sufficient cerebral perfusion and oxygenation (CPO) during hypotensive periods in anaesthetized patients. Efficacy depends both on the vasopressor and anaesthetic protocol used. Propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is common in human anaesthesia, and dexmedetomidine is increasingly used as adjuvant to facilitate better haemodynamic stability and analgesia. Little is known of its interaction with vasopressors and subsequent effects on CPO. This study investigates the CPO response to infusions of norepinephrine and phenylephrine in piglets during propofol-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil-dexmedetomidine anaesthesia. Sixteen healthy female piglets (25-34 kg) were randomly allocated into a two-arm parallel group design with either normal blood pressure (NBP) or induced low blood pressure (LBP). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol without premedication and maintained with propofol-remifentanil TIVA, and finally supplemented with continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine. Norepinephrine and phenylephrine were infused in consecutive intervention periods before and after addition of dexmedetomidine. Cerebral perfusion measured by laser speckle contrast imaging was related to cerebral oxygenation as measured by an intracerebral Licox probe (partial pressure of oxygen) and transcranial near infrared spectroscopy technology (NIRS) (cerebral oxygen saturation).ResultsDuring propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia, increases in blood pressure by norepinephrine and phenylephrine did not change cerebral perfusion significantly, but cerebral partial pressure of oxygen (Licox) increased following vasopressors in both groups and increases following norepinephrine were significant (NBP: P = 0.04, LBP: P = 0.02). In contrast, cerebral oxygen saturation (NIRS) fell significantly in NBP following phenylephrine (P = 0.003), and following both norepinephrine (P = 0.02) and phenylephrine (P = 0.002) in LBP. Blood pressure increase by both norepinephrine and phenylephrine during propofol-remifentanil-dexmedetomidine anaesthesia was not followed by significant changes in cerebral perfusion. Licox measures increased significantly following both vasopressors in both groups, whereas the decreases in NIRS measures were only significant in the NBP group.ConclusionsCerebral partial pressure of oxygen measured by Licox increased significantly in concert with the vasopressor induced increases in blood pressure in healthy piglets with both normal and low blood pressure. Cerebral oxygenation assessed by intracerebral Licox and transcranial NIRS showed opposing results to vasopressor infusions.

Project description:Background: Propofol injection pain, despite various interventions, still occurs during the anesthesia induction and causes intense discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on propofol injection pain prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C. Methods: A total of 251 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II) who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomly assigned to a combination group (n = 63), lidocaine group (n = 62), dexmedetomidine group (n = 63), and placebo-control group (n = 63); they received 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C, 40 mg lidocaine, 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction, and normal saline, respectively. Incidence of pain, pain intensity, and reaction to the pain stimulus were evaluated by using verbal categorial scoring (VCS), a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), respectively. In addition, hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were also measured. The VCS and NRS were evaluated at 5 s after propofol injection. In addition, SPI, HR, and MAP were evaluated at three time points (before anesthesia induction and 5 and 30 s after propofol injection). Results: The incidence of pain in the combination group (51%) was significantly lower than that in the lidocaine group (71%), dexmedetomidine group (67%), or placebo-control group (94%) (p < 0.001). VCS and NRS scores in the combination group were also lower compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine group and dexmedetomidine group (p > 0.05). The SPI of the combination group decreased significantly in comparison with the other three groups at 5 s after propofol injection (F = 96.23, p < 0.001) and 30 s after propofol injection (F = 4.46, p = 0.005). Further comparisons between HR and MAP revealed no significant differences across the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Because of the sedative nature of dexmedetomidine and analgesic effect of low temperature, this study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C is highly effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of pain during injection compared with lidocaine (40 mg), dexmedetomidine 0.5 ug/kg) and placebo. This approach was not associated with any anesthesia complications. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-2000034663.

Dataset Information

Male patients require higher optimal effect-site concentrations of propofol during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 ?g/kg.

Publications

Male patients require higher optimal effect-site concentrations of propofol during i-gel insertion with dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets