Breathing variability during propofol/remifentanil procedural sedation with a single additional dose of midazolam or s-ketamine: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Regulation of spontaneous breathing is highly complex and may be influenced by drugs administered during the perioperative period. Because of their different pharmacological properties we hypothesized that midazolam and s-ketamine exert different effects on the variability of minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume (TV) and respiratory rate (RR). METHODS: Patients undergoing procedural sedation (PSA) with propofol and remifentanil received a single dose of midazolam (1-3 mg, n = 10) or s-ketamine (10-25 mg, n = 10). We used non-invasive impedance-based respiratory volume monitoring to record RR as well as changes in TV and MV. Variability of these three parameters was calculated as coefficients of variation. RESULTS: TV and MV decreased during PSA to a comparable extent in both groups, whereas there was no significant change in RR. In line with our hypothesis we observed marked differences in breathing variability. The variability of MV (- 47.5% ± 24.8%, p = 0.011), TV (- 42.1% ± 30.2%, p = 0.003), and RR (- 28.5% ± 29.3%, p = 0.011) was significantly reduced in patients receiving midazolam. In contrast, variability remained unchanged in patients receiving s-ketamine (MV + 16% ± 45.2%, p = 0.182; TV +12% ± 47.7%, p = 0.390; RR +39% ± 65.2%, p = 0.129). After termination of PSA breathing variables returned to baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: While midazolam reduces respiratory variability in spontaneously breathing patients undergoing procedural sedation, s-ketamine preserves variability suggesting different effects on the regulation of spontaneous breathing.

Variations in respiratory rate do not reflect changes in tidal volume or minute ventilation after major abdominal surgery.

Monitoring of postoperative pulmonary function usually includes respiratory rate and oxygen saturation measurements. We hypothesized that changes in postoperative respiratory rate do not correlate with changes in tidal volume or minute ventilation. In addition, we hypothesized that variability of minute ventilation and tidal volume is larger than variability of respiratory rate. Respiratory rate and changes in tidal volume and in minute ventilation were continuously measured in 27 patients during 24 h following elective abdominal surgery, using an impedance-based non-invasive respiratory volume monitor (ExSpiron, Respiratory Motion, Waltham, MA, US). Coefficients of variation were used as a measure for variability of respiratory rate, tidal volume and minute ventilation. Data of 38,149 measurements were analyzed. We found no correlation between respiratory rate and tidal volume or minute ventilation (r2 = 0.02 and 0.01). Mean respiratory rate increased within the first 24 h after abdominal surgery from 13.9 ± 2.5 to 16.2 ± 2.4 breaths/min (p = 0.008), while tidal volume and minute ventilation remained unchanged (p = 0.90 and p = 0.18). Of interest, variability of respiratory rate (0.21 ± 0.06) was significantly smaller than variability of tidal volume (0.37 ± 0.12, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (0.41 ± 0.12, p < 0.001). Changes in postoperative respiratory rate do not allow conclusions about changes in tidal volume or minute ventilation. We suggest that postoperative alveolar hypoventilation may not be recognized by monitoring respiratory rate alone. Variability of respiratory rate is smaller than variability in tidal volume and minute ventilation, suggesting that adaptations of alveolar ventilation to metabolic needs may be predominately achieved by variations in tidal volume.

No evidence of potentiation of buprenorphine by milnacipran in healthy subjects using a nociceptive test battery.

BACKGROUND: Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and noradrenalin and are used in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Animal studies suggest that milnacipran co-administered with opioids may potentiate the analgesic effect of µ-opioid receptor agonists. This study hypothesized that co-administration of milnacipran and buprenorphine would have a synergistic effect in evoked pain models in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled, four-way cross-over, multiple dose clinical trial to investigate the analgesic effects of buprenorphine (placebo, 0.5, 1 and 3 µg/kg) in combination with milnacipran (placebo, 25 and 50 mg) in healthy subjects. RESULTS: 11 healthy men were enrolled in the study. Buprenorphine alone showed a dose-response relationship indicative of anti-nociception in the pain tests. Following milnacipran administration, no changes were seen in the pharmacodynamic measurements for pain, psychomotor function, body stability or eye movements. For the electrical tests, cold pressor test and pressure pain test, buprenorphine alone was superior when compared with buprenorphine plus milnacipran. No differences in pharmacodynamic variables, besides an increase in pupil/iris ratio, were observed after repeated administration of milnacipran 50 mg. Single and multiple doses of 25 or 50 mg milnacipran did not further potentiate the anti-nociceptive effects of buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine showed dose-dependent effects consistent with its pharmacological profile. Milnacipran alone did not affect any of the pain variables. The combination of both buprenorphine and milnacipran did not potentiate or show a synergistic effect on the pain models used in this study. SIGNIFICANCE: Buprenorphine is known to be a potent opioid agonist. Animal studies suggest that milnacipran co-administered with opioids may potentiate the analgesic effect of µ-opioid receptor agonists. Here, we found that buprenorphine showed a dose-dependent analgesic effect, but that no potentiation or synergy on a battery of evoked pain tasks could be observed after co-administration of both milnacipran and buprenorphine.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orally administered clonidine: a model-based approach.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The oral clonidine test is a diagnostic procedure performed in children with suspected growth hormone (GH) deficiency. It is associated with untoward effects, including bradycardia, hypotension and sedation. Serum clonidine levels have not previously been assessed during this test. METHODS: In 40 children referred for an oral clonidine test, blood samples were drawn for clonidine and GH. Vital statistics and sedation scores were recorded until 210 min post-dose. We explored the relationship between clonidine concentrations and effects such as GH peak and blood pressure. RESULTS: Of 40 participants, 5 children were GH deficient. Peak clonidine concentrations of 0.846 ± 0.288 ng/ml were reached after 1 h. Serum levels declined slowly, with concentrations of 0.701 ± 0.189 ng/ml 210 min post-dose. A large interindividual variation of serum levels was observed. During the procedure, systolic blood pressure dropped by 12.8%, diastolic blood pressure by 19.7% and heart rate by 8.4%. Moderate sedation levels were observed. Concentration-effect modeling showed that the amount of GH available for secretion as determined by previous bursts was an important factor influencing GH response. CONCLUSION: Clonidine concentrations during the test were higher than necessary according to model-based predictions. A lower clonidine dose may be sufficient and may produce fewer side effects.