Comparison of haemodynamic- and electroencephalographic-monitored effects evoked by four combinations of effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil, yielding a predicted tolerance to laryngoscopy of 90.

This prospective study evaluates haemodynamic and electroencephalographic effects observed when administering four combinations of effect-site concentrations of propofol (CePROP) and remifentanil (CeREMI), all yielding a single predicted probability of tolerance of laryngoscopy of 90% (PTOL = 90%) according to the Bouillon interaction model. We aimed to identify combinations of CePROP and CeREMI along a single isobole of PTOL that result in favourable hypnotic and haemodynamic conditions. This knowledge could be of advantage in the development of drug advisory monitoring technology. 80 patients (18-90 years of age, ASA I-III) were randomized into four groups and titrated towards CePROP (Schnider model, ug⋅ml-1) and CeREMI (Minto model, ng⋅ml-1) of respectively 8.6 and 1, 5.9 and 2, 3.6 and 4 and 2.0 and 8. After eleven minutes of equilibration, baseline measurements of haemodynamic endpoints and bispectral index were compared with three minutes of responsiveness measurements after laryngoscopy. Before laryngoscopy, bispectral index differed significantly (p < 0.0001) between groups in concordance with CePROP. Heart rate decreased with increasing CeREMI (p = 0.001). The haemodynamic and arousal responses evoked by laryngoscopy were not significantly different between groups, but CePROP = 3.6 µg⋅ml-1 and CeREMI = 4 ng⋅ml-1 evoked the lowest median value for ∆HR and ∆SAP after laryngoscopy. This study provides clinical insight on the haemodynamic and hypnotic consequences, when a model based predicted PTOL is used as a target for combined effect-site controlled target- controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil. Heart rate and bispectral index were significantly different between groups despite a theoretical equipotency for PTOL, suggesting that each component of the anaesthetic state (immobility, analgesia, and hypnotic drug effect) should be considered as independent neurophysiological and pharmacological phenomena. However, claims of (in)accuracy of the predicted PTOL must be considered preliminary because larger numbers of observations are required for that goal.

Dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in healthy volunteers: 1. Influence of arousal on bispectral index and sedation.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine, a selective α 2 -adrenoreceptor agonist, has unique characteristics, such as maintained respiratory drive and production of arousable sedation. We describe development of a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of the sedative properties of dexmedetomidine, taking into account the effect of stimulation on its sedative properties. METHODS: In a two-period, randomized study in 18 healthy volunteers, dexmedetomidine was delivered in a step-up fashion by means of target-controlled infusion using the Dyck model. Volunteers were randomized to a session without background noise and a session with pre-recorded looped operating room background noise. Exploratory pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling and covariate analysis were conducted in NONMEM using bispectral index (BIS) monitoring of processed EEG. RESULTS: We found that both stimulation at the time of Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale scoring and the presence or absence of ambient noise had an effect on the sedative properties of dexmedetomidine. The stimuli associated with MOAA/S scoring increased the BIS of sedated volunteers because of a transient 170% increase in the effect-site concentration necessary to reach half of the maximal effect. In contrast, volunteers deprived of ambient noise were more resistant to dexmedetomidine and required, on average, 32% higher effect-site concentrations for the same effect as subjects who were exposed to background operating room noise. CONCLUSIONS: The new pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models might be used for effect-site rather than plasma concentration target-controlled infusion for dexmedetomidine in clinical practice, thereby allowing tighter control over the desired level of sedation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01879865.

Dexmedetomidine pharmacodynamics in healthy volunteers: 2. Haemodynamic profile.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine, a selective α 2 -adrenoreceptor agonist, has unique characteristics, with little respiratory depression and rousability during sedations. We characterized the haemodynamic properties of dexmedetomidine by developing a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model with a focus on changes in mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate. METHODS: Dexmedetomidine was delivered i.v. to 18 healthy volunteers in a step-up fashion by target-controlled infusion using the Dyck model. Exploratory PKPD modelling and covariate analysis were conducted in NONMEM. RESULTS: Our model adequately describes dexmedetomidine-induced hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia, with a greater effective concentration for the hypertensive effect. Changes in MAP were best described by a double-sigmoidal E max model with hysteresis. Covariate analysis revealed no significant covariates apart from age on the baseline MAP in the population pharmacokinetic model used to develop this PKPD model. Simulations revealed good general agreement with published descriptive studies of haemodynamics after dexmedetomedine infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The present integrated PKPD model should allow tighter control over the desired level of sedation, while limiting potential haemodynamic side-effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01879865.

Probability to tolerate laryngoscopy and noxious stimulation response index as general indicators of the anaesthetic potency of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil.

BACKGROUND: The probability to tolerate laryngoscopy (PTOL) and its derivative, the noxious stimulation response index (NSRI), have been proposed as measures of potency of a propofol-remifentanil drug combination. This study aims at developing a triple drug interaction model to estimate the combined potency of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil in terms of PTOL. We compare the predictive performance of PTOL and the NSRI with various anaesthetic depth monitors. METHODS: Data from three previous studies (n=120) were pooled and reanalysed. Movement response after laryngoscopy was observed with different combinations of propofol-remifentanil, sevoflurane-propofol, and sevoflurane-remifentanil. A triple interaction model to estimate PTOL was developed. The NSRI was derived from PTOL. The ability of PTOL and the NSRI to predict observed tolerance of laryngoscopy (TOL) was compared with the following other measures: (i) effect-site concentrations of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil (CeSEVO, CePROP, and CeREMI); (ii) bispectral index; (iii) two measures of spectral entropy; (iv) composite variability index; and (v) surgical pleth index. RESULTS: Sevoflurane and propofol interact additively, whereas remifentanil interacts in a strongly synergistic manner. The effect-site concentrations of sevoflurane and propofol at a PTOL of 50% (Ce50; se) were 2.59 (0.13) vol % and 7.58 (0.49) µg ml(-1). A CeREMI of 1.36 (0.15) ng ml(-1) reduced the Ce50 of sevoflurane and propofol by 50%. The common slope factor was 5.22 (0.52). The PTOL and NSRI predict the movement response to laryngoscopy best. CONCLUSIONS: The triple interaction model estimates the potency of any combination of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil expressed as either PTOL or NSRI.