Search

Background: With the growing use of pharmacokinetic (PK)-driven drug delivery and/or drug advisory displays, identifying the PK model that best characterizes propofol plasma concentration (Cp) across a variety of dosing conditions would be useful. We tested the accuracy of 3 compartmental models and 1 physiologically based recirculatory PK model for propofol to predict the time course of propofol Cp using concentration-time data originated from studies that used different infusion schemes., Methods: Three compartmental PK models for propofol, called the "Marsh," the "Schnider," and the "Schüttler" models, and 1 physiologically based recirculatory model called the "Upton" model, were used to simulate the time course of propofol Cp. To test the accuracy of the models, we used published measured plasma concentration data that originated from studies of manual (bolus and short infusion) and computer-controlled (target-controlled infusion [TCI] and long infusion) propofol dosing schemes. Measured/predicted (M/P) propofol Cp plots were constructed for each dataset. Bias and inaccuracy of each model were assessed by median prediction error (MDPE) and median absolute prediction error (MDAPE), respectively., Results: The M/P propofol Cp in the 4 PK models revealed bias in all 3 compartmental models during the bolus and short infusion regimens. In the long infusion, a worse M/P propofol Cp at higher concentration was seen for the Marsh and the Schüttler models than for the 2 other models. Less biased M/P propofol Cp was found for all models during TCI. In the bolus group, after 1 min, a clear overprediction was seen for all 3 compartmental models for the entire 5 min; however, this initial error resolved after 4 min in the Schnider model. The Upton model did not predict propofol Cp accurately (major overprediction) during the first minute. During the bolus and short infusion, the Marsh model demonstrated worse MDPE and MDAPE compared with the 3 other models. During short infusion, MDAPE for the Schnider and Schüttler models was better than the Upton and the Marsh models. All models showed similar MDPE and MDAPE during TCI simulations. During long infusion, the Marsh and the Schüttler models underestimated the higher plasma concentrations., Conclusion: When combining the performance during various infusion regimens, it seems that the Schnider model, although still not perfect, is the recommended model to be used for TCI and advisory displays.

Background: Propofol and sevoflurane display additivity for gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor activation, loss of consciousness, and tolerance of skin incision. Information about their interaction regarding electroencephalographic suppression is unavailable. This study examined this interaction as well as the interaction on the probability of tolerance of shake and shout and three noxious stimulations by using a response surface methodology., Methods: Sixty patients preoperatively received different combined concentrations of propofol (0-12 microg/ml) and sevoflurane (0-3.5 vol.%) according to a crisscross design (274 concentration pairs, 3 to 6 per patient). After having reached pseudo-steady state, the authors recorded bispectral index, state and response entropy and the response to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy. For the analysis of the probability of tolerance by logistic regression, a Greco interaction model was used. For the separate analysis of bispectral index, state and response entropy suppression, a fractional Emax Greco model was used. All calculations were performed with NONMEM V (GloboMax LLC, Hanover, MD)., Results: Additivity was found for all endpoints, the Ce(50, PROP)/Ce(50, SEVO) for bispectral index suppression was 3.68 microg. ml(-1)/ 1.53 vol.%, for tolerance of shake and shout 2.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 1.03 vol.%, tetanic stimulation 5.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 2.11 vol.%, laryngeal mask airway insertion 5.92 microg. ml(-1) / 2.55 vol.%, and laryngoscopy 6.55 microg. ml(-1)/2.83 vol.%., Conclusion: For both electroencephalographic suppression and tolerance to stimulation, the interaction of propofol and sevoflurane was identified as additive. The response surface data can be used for more rational dose finding in case of sequential and coadministration of propofol and sevoflurane.

Background: Conventional compartmental pharmacokinetic models wrongly assume instantaneous drug mixing in the central compartment, resulting in a flawed prediction of drug disposition for the first minutes, and the flaw affects pharmacodynamic modeling. This study examined the influence of the administration rate and other covariates on early phase kinetics and dynamics of propofol by using the enlarged structural pharmacokinetic model., Methods: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to one of five groups to receive 1.2 mg/kg propofol given with the rate of 10 to 160 mg . kg(-1). h(-1). Arterial blood samples were taken frequently, especially during the first minute. The authors compared four basic pharmacokinetic models by using presystemic compartments and the time shift of dosing, LAG time. They also examined a sigmoidal maximum possible drug effect pharmacodynamic model. Patient characteristics and dose rate were obtained to test the model structure., Results: Our final pharmacokinetic model includes two conventional compartments enlarged with a LAG time and six presystemic compartments and includes following covariates: dose rate for transit rate constant, age for LAG time, and weight for central distribution volume. However, the equilibration rate constant between central and effect compartments was not influenced by infusion rate., Conclusions: This study found that a combined pharmacokinetic-dynamic model consisting of a two-compartmental model with a LAG time and presystemic compartments and a sigmoidal maximum possible drug effect model accurately described the early phase pharmacology of propofol during infusion rate between 10 and 160 mg . kg(-1). h(-1). The infusion rate has an influence on kinetics, but not dynamics. Age was a covariate for LAG time.

Background: Closed-loop control of the hypnotic component of anesthesia has been proposed in an attempt to optimize drug delivery. Here, we introduce a newly developed Bayesian-based, patient-individualized, model-based, adaptive control method for bispectral index (BIS) guided propofol infusion into clinical practice and compare its accuracy and clinical feasibility under direct observation of an anesthesiologist versus BIS guided, effect compartment controlled propofol administration titrated by the anesthesiologist during ambulatory gynecological procedures., Methods: Forty ASA patients were randomly allocated to the closed-loop or manual control group. All patients received midazolam 1 mg IV and alfentanil 0.5 mg IV before induction. In the closed-loop control group, propofol was administered using the previously described closed-loop control system to reach and maintain a target BIS of 50. In the manual control group, the propofol effect-site concentration was adapted at the discretion of the anesthesiologist to reach and maintain a BIS as close as possible to 50. Induction characteristics, performance, and robustness during maintenance and recovery times were compared. Hemodynamic and respiratory stability were calculated as clinical feasibility parameters., Results: The closed-loop control system titrated propofol administration accurately resulting in BIS values close to the set point. The closed-loop control system was able to induce the patients within clinically accepted time limits and with less overshoot than the manual control group. Automated control resulted in beneficial recovery times. Our closed-loop control group showed similar acceptable clinical performance specified by similar hemodynamic, respiratory stability, comparable movement rates, and quality scores than the manual control group., Conclusions: The Bayesian-based closed-loop control system for propofol administration using the BIS as a controlled variable performed accurate during anesthesia for ambulatory gynecological procedures. This control system is clinical feasibility and can be further validated in clinical practice.

Background: Implementing Bayesian methods in a model-based closed-loop system requires the integration of a standard response model with a patient-specific response model. This process makes use of specific modeling weights, called Bayesian variances, which determine how the specific model can deviate from the standard model. In this study we applied simulations to select the Bayesian variances yielding the optimal controller for a Bayesian-based closed-loop system for propofol administration using the Bispectral Index (BIS) as a controlled variable., Methods: The relevant Bayesian variances determining the modeling process were identified. Each set of such Bayesian variances represents a potential controller. The set, which will result in optimal control, was estimated using calculations on a simulated population. We selected 625 candidate sets. Similar to our previous closed-loop performance study, we applied a simulation protocol to evaluate controller performance. Our population consisted of 416 virtual patients, generated using population characteristics from previous work. A BIS offset trajectory similar to a surgical case was used., Results: We were able to develop, describe, and optimize the parameter setting for a patient-individualized model-based closed-loop controller using Bayesian optimization. Selection of the optimal set yields a controller performing with the following median absolute prediction errors at BIS targets 30, 50, and 70: 12.9 +/- 2.87, 7.59 +/- 0.74, and 5.76 +/- 1.03 respectively., Conclusions: We believe this system can be introduced safely into clinical testing for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia under direct observation of an anesthesiologist.

Background: The authors hypothesized a difference in plasma-effect site equilibration, depicted by a first-order constant k(e0), depending on the injection rate of propofol., Methods: Sixty-one patients received 2.5 mg/kg propofol given as a bolus or as a 1-, 2-, or 3-min infusion. The Bispectral Index was used to monitor drug effect. Propofol predicted plasma concentration was calculated using a three-compartment model and the effect site concentration over time as the convolution between the predicted plasma concentration and the disposition function of the effect site concentration. The authors evaluated the influence of the infusion rate on the k(e0) by comparing the model with one k(e0) for all groups with models estimating different k(e0) values for each group. The authors also assessed the accuracy of two pharmacokinetic models after bolus injection., Results: The best model based was a fixed (Bispectral Index > or = 90) plus sigmoidal model (Bispectral Index < 90) with two values of k(e0), one for the bolus (t(1/2) k(e0) = 1.2 min) and one for the infusions (t(1/2) k(e0) = 2.2 min). However, the tested pharmacokinetic models poorly predicted the arterial concentrations in the first minutes after bolus injection. Simulations showed the requirement for two k(e0) values for bolus and infusion was mostly a compensation for the inaccurate prediction of arterial concentrations after a bolus., Conclusion: Propofol plasma-effect site equilibration occurs more rapidly after a bolus than after rapid infusion, based on the electroencephalogram as a drug effect measure, mostly because of misspecification of the pharmacokinetic model in the first minutes after bolus.

Background: The authors studied the effects of ketamine and rocuronium on the Bispectral Index, A-Line auditory evoked potential index, state entropy, and response entropy during a calculated steady state anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil., Methods: After ethics committee approval, 42 patients were allocated to four groups. Baseline measurements were performed after implementing a calculated steady state anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil. The control group received no additional medication. The ketamine group received a bolus and continuous infusion of ketamine. The rocuronium group received a bolus of rocuronium. The rocuronium-ketamine group received both. All data were stored during 15 min after baseline. After inspection of the raw data, the authors conducted an explorative statistical analysis., Results: No significant changes were found in the control group for any of the monitors. Mean values decreased in the rocuronium group for the A-Line auditory evoked potential index, Bispectral Index, and response entropy, but not for state entropy. In the ketamine group, the A-Line auditory evoked potential index and Bispectral Index did not change significantly, but state and response entropy increased. In the rocuronium-ketamine group, the A-Line auditory evoked potential index and Bispectral Index did not decrease as found in the rocuronium group. Response and state entropy increased significantly., Conclusions: The response of all monitors after ketamine administration is not affected by simultaneous administration of rocuronium. Interpretation of all studied indices must be done cautiously while taking into account the clinical setting during measurement.

Background: AQUAVAN Injection (AQ) (GPI 15715; Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc., Baltimore, MD) is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol. The authors explored the pharmacodynamics and safety of AQ and compared it with propofol lipid emulsion (PropofolD)., Methods: After institutional review board approval, 36 volunteers with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I were randomly allocated into six cohorts (male/female: 3/3 per cohort) and given a single bolus of AQ (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/kg). A Bispectral Index monitor (Aspect Medical Systems Inc., Newton, MA) measured the hypnotic effect. The lowest Bispectral Index level (BISpeak) was recorded. One week later, PropofolD was given to the same subjects at 50 mg/min to reach a similar BISpeak. Heart rate, oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and side effects were monitored. Incidence and duration of apnea and loss (LOCverbal) and return of response to verbal command were measured. A population compartmental pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was developed for AQ using NONMEM and evaluated using simulations, leverage, and bootstrap analyses., Results: In the higher dosages (cohorts 4-6), all subjects achieved LOCverbal. Similar times until LOCverbal were seen for AQ and PropofolD. A dose-related increase in duration of LOCverbal was longer for AQ than for PropofolD. AQ BISpeak occurred later than with PropofolD. Pain on injection was only present with PropofolD (12 of 36). With AQ, transient paresthesias and pruritus were seen. Hemodynamic profiles were similar for both drugs, except for an initial tachycardia after AQ administration. Dose-dependent apnea was more pronounced with PropofolD than with AQ. The AQ combined pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile was best described by a nonlinear, six-compartment pharmacokinetic model and an effect site compartment. A dependency of the ke0 value on the PropofolGPI plasma concentration was noted., Conclusion: Bolus administration of AQ achieves LOCverbal at a similar time as an equipotent amount of PropofolD but shows a longer time to BISpeak and prolonged pharmacodynamics. For both drugs, excellent drug safety was achieved, although there was a tendency of fewer and shorter duration of apneas for AQ.

Background: AQUAVAN Injection (AQ) (GPI 15715; Guilford Pharmaceutical Inc., Baltimore, MD) is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol (PropofolGPI). This study aimed to explore the pharmacokinetics of AQ, PropofolGPI, and formate (a metabolite of AQ) and to compare them with the pharmacokinetics of propofol lipid emulsion (PropofolD)., Methods: After ethics committee approval, 36 healthy volunteers were randomly allocated into six cohorts (male/female: 3/3) and given a single bolus of AQ (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/kg). For comparison, an equipotent dose (as measured by the Bispectral Index) of PropofolD was given to the same subjects 1 week later. For both drugs, blood samples were collected (1-480 min) to analyze AQ, PropofolGPI, PropofolD, and formate concentrations. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analyses were performed for all analytes. A population compartmental model was developed for AQ and PropofolGPI using NONMEM. The models were evaluated using simulations and bootstraps., Results: The noncompartmental pharmacokinetic comparison revealed different dispositions of PropofolGPI and PropofolD. The maximum plasma concentration was lower for PropofolGPI than for PropofolD at equipotent doses, and apparent clearance and distribution volume were much higher for PropofolGPI than for PropofolD. Formate concentrations were similar when injecting both drugs and were not higher than baseline. Compartmental modeling revealed that the pharmacokinetic behavior of AQ and its liberated PropofolGPI was best described by a nonlinear, six-compartment model, composed of two three-compartment models connected to each other by hydrolysis of AQ to PropofolGPI., Conclusions: PropofolGPI showed different noncompartmental pharmacokinetics from PropofolD, hereby revealing the influence of the formulation. The combined model for AQ and PropofolGPI was best modeled by a nonlinear, six-compartment model.

Background: This study investigates the accuracy of a composite index, the A-Line(R) auditory evoked potentials index version 1.6 (AAI1.6; Danmeter A/S, Odense, Denmark), as a measure of cerebral anesthetic drug effect in a model for predicting a calculated effect site concentration of propofol (CePROP). The AAI1.6 algorithm extracts information from the midlatency auditory evoked potentials, the spontaneous electroencephalographic activity, and the detection of burst suppression. The former version of this monitor, the A-Line auditory evoked potential index version 1.5, is only based on fast extracted midlatency auditory evoked potential information., Methods: After institutional ethics committee approval (University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium), informed consent was obtained from 13 patients (10 women, 3 men) with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I, aged 18-65 yr, who were scheduled to undergo ambulatory gynecologic or urologic surgery. The authors evaluated for Bispectral Index, A-Line auditory evoked potential index, version 1.5, AAI1.6 scaled from 0 to 100 and AAI1.6 scaled from 0 to 60, the interpatient stability at baseline, the detection of burst suppression, prediction probability, and correlation with CePROP, during a constant infusion of 1% propofol at 300 ml/h. The authors developed pharmacodynamic models relating the predicted CePROP to each measure of cerebral anesthetic drug effect., Results: Bispectral Index had the lowest interindividual baseline variability. No significant difference was found with prediction probability analysis for all measures. Comparisons for correlation were performed for all indices. The AAI1.6 scaled to 60 had a significantly higher correlation with CePROP compared with all other measures. The AAI1.6 scaled to 100 had a significant higher correlation with CePROP compared with the A-Line auditory evoked potential index version 1.5 (P < 0.05), Conclusions: The authors found that the application of AAI1.6 has a better correlation with a calculated CePROP compared with a solitary fast extracting midlatency auditory evoked potential measure. Whether this improvement in pharmacodynamic tracing is accompanied by an improved clinical performance should be investigated using clinical endpoints.

Background: The authors compared the behavior of two calculations of electroencephalographic spectral entropy, state entropy (SE) and response entropy (RE), with the A-Line ARX Index (AAI) and the Bispectral Index (BIS) and as measures of anesthetic drug effect. They compared the measures for baseline variability, burst suppression, and prediction probability. They also developed pharmacodynamic models relating SE, RE, AAI, and BIS to the calculated propofol effect-site concentration (Ceprop)., Methods: With institutional review board approval, the authors studied 10 patients. All patients received 50 mg/min propofol until either burst suppression greater than 80% or mean arterial pressure less than 50 mmHg was observed. SE, RE, AAI, and BIS were continuously recorded. Ceprop was calculated from the propofol infusion profile. Baseline variability, prediction of burst suppression, prediction probability, and Spearman rank correlation were calculated for SE, RE, AAI, and BIS. The relations between Ceprop and the electroencephalographic measures of drug effect were estimated using nonlinear mixed effect modeling., Results: Baseline variability was lowest when using SE and RE. Burst suppression was most accurately detected by spectral entropy. Prediction probability and individualized Spearman rank correlation were highest for BIS and lowest for SE. Nonlinear mixed effect modeling generated reasonable models relating all four measures to Ceprop., Conclusions: Compared with BIS and AAI, both SE and RE seem to be useful electroencephalographic measures of anesthetic drug effect, with low baseline variability and accurate burst suppression prediction. The ability of the measures to predict Ceprop was best for BIS.

Study Objective: To evaluate whether the use of remifentanil to supplement propofol during spontaneous respiration confers any benefits in terms of quality of sedation and recovery, or in terms of reduction in propofol requirements., Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study., Setting: University hospital., Patients: 50 ambulatory adult ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for total colonoscopy., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either propofol alone or propofol plus remifentanil 0.1 microg/kg/min, while independently maintaining spontaneous respiration., Measurements: Cardiovascular and respiratory variables were measured before induction and at 1-minute intervals thereafter. Recovery from anesthesia was assessed using simple verbal commands and the Steward Post Recovery Score. Patient satisfaction was measured with a visual analog scale. Computer simulation was used to calculate the effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil., Main Results: The depressant effects on blood pressure and respiratory function were significantly higher when propofol and remifentanil were combined. Although the addition of remifentanil resulted in a decrease of propofol usage, recovery of anesthesia was faster and patient satisfaction was higher when using propofol alone., Conclusions: The addition of remifentanil to propofol during spontaneous ventilation offered no benefits compared with the use of propofol alone.

Background: This study was conducted to compare the performance accuracy of the independent variables Bispectral Index (BIS), A-Line ARX index (AAI), and predicted propofol effect-site concentration (CePROP) to measure the dependent variables of loss of responses to different stimulation defined as loss of response to verbal command (LORverbal), eyelash reflex (LORlash), and noxious stimulus (LORnoxious) during stepwise increased levels of propofol infusion with and without remifentanil., Methods: Forty-five patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (0, 2, and 4 ng/ml remifentanil) to receive graded CePROP and predicted effect compartment controlled remifentanil (CeREMI). At every step, the ability to respond to verbal command using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S), eyelash reflex, and electrical tetanic noxious stimulus were compared against BIS, AAI, and CePROP. Prediction probability and sensitivity/specificity were calculated., Results: Increasing CeREMI increased BIS and AAI values at LORverbal and LORlash and decreased CePROP. Similar findings were found for LORnoxious. The overall prediction probability to measure the hypnotic component of anesthesia remained accurate in the three groups for BIS, AAI, and CePROP. Combined information from CePROP, CeREMI, and BIS or AAI increased the overall prediction probability for predicting the OAA/S scale and LORlash. Less accuracy to LORnoxious was found in all independent variables., Conclusions: Although BIS, AAI, and CePROP were influenced by remifentanil during propofol administration, their ability to detect OAA/S and LORlash remained accurate. Improved performance is obtained when BIS and AAI are measured in conjunction with drug targeted effect-site concentrations. Remifentanil decreases the ability of these independent variables to detect LORnoxious.

Background: Autoregressive modeling with exogenous input of middle-latency auditory evoked potential (A-Line autoregressive index [AAI]) has been proposed for monitoring anesthetic depth. The aim of the current study was to compare the accuracy of this new index with the Bispectral Index (BIS), predicted effect-site concentration of propofol, and hemodynamic measures., Methods: Twenty female patients scheduled for ambulatory gynecologic surgery received effect compartment controlled infusion of propofol. Target effect-site concentration was started at 1.5 microg/ml and increased every 4 min by 0.5 microg/ml. At every step, sedation level was compared with monitoring values using different clinical scoring systems and reaction to noxious stimulus., Results: Bispectral Index, AAI, and predicted propofol effect-site concentration were accurate indicators for the level of sedation and loss of consciousness. Hemodynamic variables were poor indicators of the hypnotic-anesthetic status of the patient. BIS correlated best with propofol effect-site concentration, followed by AAI. Hemodynamic measurements did not correlate well. No indicators predicted reaction to noxious stimulus. Poststimulus, BIS and AAI showed an increase as a result of arousal. This reaction occurred more rapidly with the AAI than with BIS., Conclusion: Bispectral Index, AAI, and predicted propofol effect-site concentration revealed information on the level of sedation and loss of consciousness but did not predict response to noxious stimulus.