Comparison of the potency of different propofol formulations: a randomized, double-blind trial using closed-loop administration.

BACKGROUND: Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations-Diprivan (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propoven (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)-were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient's discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propoven required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propoven (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P < 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported. CONCLUSION: Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.

Titration of propofol for anesthetic induction and maintenance guided by the bispectral index: closed-loop versus manual control: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: This report describes a closed-loop titration of propofol target control infusion based on a proportional-differential algorithm guided by the Bispectral Index (BIS) allowing induction and maintenance of general anesthesia and compares this to manual propofol target control infusion. METHODS: One hundred sixty-four patients scheduled to undergo elective minor or major surgery were prospectively randomized in a multicenter study into the closed-loop (n = 83) or manual target control infusion group (n = 81). The goal was to reach a BIS target of 50 during induction and to maintain it between 40 and 60 during maintenance. For both groups, remifentanil target control infusion was adjusted manually, and ventilation was without nitrous oxide. RESULTS: Closed-loop control was able to provide anesthesia induction and maintenance for all patients. During induction, propofol consumption was lower in the closed-loop group (1.4 +/- 0.5 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.6 mg/kg; P < 0.0001), but the duration was longer (320 +/- 125 vs. 271 +/- 120 s; P < 0.0002). Adequate anesthesia maintenance, defined as the BIS in the range of 40-60, was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (89 +/- 9 vs. 70 +/- 21%; P < 0.0001), with a decrease of the occurrence of BIS less than 40 (8 +/- 8 vs. 26 +/- 22%; P < 0.0001). Time from discontinuation of propofol infusion to tracheal extubation was shorter in the closed-loop group (7 +/- 4 vs. 10 +/- 7 min; P < 0.017). Unwanted somatic events and hemodynamic instability were similar. CONCLUSION: Automatic control of consciousness using the BIS is clinically feasible and outperforms manual control.