Luciferase as a model for the site of inhaled anesthetic action.

UNLABELLED: The in vivo potencies of anesthetics correlate with their capacity to suppress the reaction of luciferin with luciferase. In addition, luciferin has structural resemblances to etomidate. These observations raise the issues of whether luciferin, itself, might affect anesthetic requirement, and whether luciferase resembles the site of anesthetic action. Because the polar luciferin is unlikely to cross the blood-brain barrier (we found that the olive oil/water partition coefficient was 100 +/- 36 x 10(-7)), we studied these issues in rats by measuring the effect of infusion of luciferin in artificial cerebrospinal fluid into the lumbar subarachnoidal space and into the cerebral intraventricular space on the MAC (the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration required to eliminate movement in response to a noxious stimulus in 50% of tested subjects) of isoflurane. MAC in rats given lumbar intrathecal doses of luciferin estimated to greatly exceed anesthetizing doses of etomidate, did not differ significantly from MAC in rats receiving only artificial cerebrospinal fluid into the lumbar intrathecal space. MAC slightly decreased when doses of luciferin estimated to greatly exceed anesthetizing doses of etomidate were infused intraventricularly (P < 0.05). In contrast to the absent or minimal effects of luciferin, intrathecal or intraventricular infusion of etomidate at similar or smaller doses significantly decreased isoflurane MAC. Luciferin did not affect +-aminobutyric acid type A or acetylcholine receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes. These results suggest that luciferin has minimal or no anesthetic effects. It also suggests that luciferin/luciferase may not provide a good surrogate for the site at which anesthetics act, if this site is on the surface of neuronal cells. IMPLICATIONS: In proportion to their potencies, anesthetics inhibit luciferin's action on luciferase, and luciferin structurally resembles the anesthetic etomidate. However, in contrast to etomidate, luciferin given intrathecally or into the third cerebral ventricle does not have anesthetic actions, and it does not affect +-aminobutyric acid or acetylcholine receptors in vitro. Luciferase may not provide a good surrogate for the site at which anesthetics act.

Both cerebral GABA(A) receptors and spinal GABA(A) receptors modulate the capacity of isoflurane to produce immobility.

We previously demonstrated that intrathecal administration of the noncompetitive gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA(A)) receptor antagonist picrotoxin increased isoflurane MAC (the minimum alveolar concentration of anesthetic producing immobility in 50% of animals) by a maximum (ceiling effect) of approximately 40%. We also found that IV administration of picrotoxin increased MAC by more than 60%, without evidence of a ceiling effect. The larger increase with IV administration suggested a role of cerebral GABA(A) receptors. Accordingly, in this study we examined the effect of intracerebroventricular administration of picrotoxin in rats, finding that picrotoxin infusion into the third ventricle increased isoflurane MAC by a maximum of approximately 40%, without finding a ceiling effect. In addition, we concurrently infused picrotoxin into the intrathecal and intracerebroventricular spaces, producing an increase in MAC in excess of 70%, also with no evidence of a ceiling effect. The dose-response relationship for the intrathecal-intraventricular infusion paralleled that of the IV infusion but was shifted to the left by an order of magnitude. We conclude that both cerebral and spinal GABA(A) receptors modulate the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility. Because other studies have shown that the spinal cord, and not the brain, mediates the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility, these results call into question the relevance of GABA(A) receptors to the immobilizing action of isoflurane.

Absorbents differ enormously in their capacity to produce compound A and carbon monoxide.

UNLABELLED: Concern persists regarding the production of carbon monoxide (CO) and Compound A from the action of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) absorbents on desflurane and sevoflurane, respectively. We tested the capacity of eight different absorbents with various base compositions to produce CO and Compound A. We delivered desflurane through desiccated absorbents, and sevoflurane through desiccated and moist absorbents, then measured the resulting concentrations of CO from the former and Compound A from the latter. We also tested the CO(2) absorbing capacity of each absorbent by using a model anesthetic system. We found that the presence of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) increased the production of CO from calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH](2)) but did not consistently affect production of Compound A. However, the effect of KOH versus NaOH was not consistent in its impact on CO production. Furthermore, the effect of KOH versus NaOH versus Ca(OH)(2) was inconsistent in its impact on Compound A production. Two absorbents (Amsorb) [Armstrong Medica, Ltd, Coleraine, Northern Ireland], composed of Ca(OH)(2) plus 0.7% polyvinylpyrrolidine, calcium chloride, and calcium sulfate; and lithium hydroxide) produced dramatically lower concentrations of both CO and Compound A. Both produced minimal to no CO and only small concentrations of Compound A. The presence of polyvinylpyrrolidine, calcium chloride, and calcium sulfate in Amsorb appears to have suppressed the production of toxic products. All absorbents had an adequate CO(2) absorbing capacity greatest with lithium hydroxide. IMPLICATIONS: Production of the toxic substances, carbon monoxide and Compound A, from anesthetic degradation by carbon dioxide absorbents, might be minimized by the use of one of two specific absorbents, Amsorb (Armstrong Medica, Ltd., Coleraine, Northern Ireland) (calcium hydroxide which also includes 0.7% polyvinylpyrrolidine, calcium chloride, and calcium sulfate) or lithium hydroxide.