Effect of lumbar epidural blockade and propofol on mean arterial pressure, cardiac output and bispectral index: A randomised controlled and pharmacodynamic modelling study.
Journal
European journal of anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1365-2346
Titre abrégé: Eur J Anaesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8411711
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
21
4
2021
medline:
7
8
2021
entrez:
20
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is generally accepted that a neuraxial blockade strengthens the sedative effects of propofol. Deafferentation caused by neuraxial blockade is thought to play a key role. The objective is to determine whether epidural blockade affects the bispectral index (BIS) of propofol and two other pharmacodynamic endpoints, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO). Randomised, placebo-controlled study. University hospital. Patients scheduled for surgery needing epidural analgesia. 28 ASA one or two patients received 0, 50, 100 or 150 mg of epidural ropivacaine. After stabilisation of the epidural blockade, propofol was given by target-controlled infusion. The propofol plasma target concentrations were increased at 6-min intervals from 0 to 1, 2.5, 4 and 6 μg ml-1. The study was performed before surgery. Three endpoints, BIS, mean arterial blood pressure and CO were measured from baseline (prior to the administration of epidural ropivacaine) until 2 h after the start of propofol infusion. The propofol concentration-effect data were analysed to determine the interaction between epidural blockade and propofol sedation. In the absence of propofol, the increase in number of epidural blocked segments from 0 to 15.5 (range 6 to 21) reduced the MAP by 30%, without affecting BIS or CO. In the absence of epidural blockade, the increase in propofol concentration to 6 μg ml-1 reduced BIS, MAP and CO. When combined, epidural anaesthesia and intravenous propofol exhibited no pharmacodynamic interaction on any of the three endpoints. In addition, epidural blockade did not affect the propofol effect-site equilibration half-life for its haemodynamic effects (11.5 ± 0.5 min) or for its effects on the BIS (4.6 ± 0.4 min). Epidural blockade reduces the propofol requirements for sedative end points. This is not the result of a pharmacodynamic interaction. Dutch trial register CCMO, Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, trial number NL 32295.058.10.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is generally accepted that a neuraxial blockade strengthens the sedative effects of propofol. Deafferentation caused by neuraxial blockade is thought to play a key role.
OBJECTIVES
The objective is to determine whether epidural blockade affects the bispectral index (BIS) of propofol and two other pharmacodynamic endpoints, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO).
DESIGN
Randomised, placebo-controlled study.
SETTING
University hospital.
PATIENTS
Patients scheduled for surgery needing epidural analgesia.
INTERVENTION
28 ASA one or two patients received 0, 50, 100 or 150 mg of epidural ropivacaine. After stabilisation of the epidural blockade, propofol was given by target-controlled infusion. The propofol plasma target concentrations were increased at 6-min intervals from 0 to 1, 2.5, 4 and 6 μg ml-1. The study was performed before surgery.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Three endpoints, BIS, mean arterial blood pressure and CO were measured from baseline (prior to the administration of epidural ropivacaine) until 2 h after the start of propofol infusion. The propofol concentration-effect data were analysed to determine the interaction between epidural blockade and propofol sedation.
RESULTS
In the absence of propofol, the increase in number of epidural blocked segments from 0 to 15.5 (range 6 to 21) reduced the MAP by 30%, without affecting BIS or CO. In the absence of epidural blockade, the increase in propofol concentration to 6 μg ml-1 reduced BIS, MAP and CO. When combined, epidural anaesthesia and intravenous propofol exhibited no pharmacodynamic interaction on any of the three endpoints. In addition, epidural blockade did not affect the propofol effect-site equilibration half-life for its haemodynamic effects (11.5 ± 0.5 min) or for its effects on the BIS (4.6 ± 0.4 min).
CONCLUSION
Epidural blockade reduces the propofol requirements for sedative end points. This is not the result of a pharmacodynamic interaction.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Dutch trial register CCMO, Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, trial number NL 32295.058.10.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33876784
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001516
pii: 00003643-202108002-00006
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anesthetics, Intravenous
0
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S121-S129Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Références
Tverskoy M, Fleyshman G, Bachrak L, et al. Effect of bupivacaine-induced spinal block on the hypnotic requirement of propofol. Anaesthesia 1996; 51:652–653.
Tverskoy M, Shifrin V, Finger J, et al. Effect of epidural bupivacaine block on midazolam hypnotic requirements. Reg Anesth 1996; 21:209–213.
Yang MK, Kim JA, Ahn HJ, et al. Influence of the baricity of a local anaesthetic agent on sedation with propofol during spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2007; 98:515–518.
Senturk M, Gucyetmez B, Ozkan-Seyhan T, et al. Comparison of the effects of thoracic and lumbar epidural anaesthesia on induction and maintenance doses of propofol during total i.v. anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:255–260.
Agarwal A, Pandey R, Dhiraaj S, et al. The effect of epidural bupivacaine on induction and maintenance doses of propofol (evaluated by bispectral index) and maintenance doses of fentanyl and vecuronium. Anesth Analg 2004; 99:1684–1688.
Dumans-Nizard V, Le Guen M, Sage E, et al. Thoracic epidural analgesia with levobupivacaine reduces remifentanil and propofol consumption evaluated by closed-loop titration guided by the bispectral index: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg 2017; 125:635–642.
Xiang Y, Chen CQ, Chen HJ, et al. The effect of epidural lidocaine administration on sedation of propofol general anesthesia: a randomized trial. J Clin Anesth 2014; 26:523–529.
Ozkan-Seyhan T, Sungur MO, Senturk E, et al. BIS guided sedation with propofol during spinal anaesthesia: influence of anaesthetic level on sedation requirement. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96:645–649.
Valverde A, Doherty TJ, Hernandez J, et al. Effect of lidocaine on the minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2004; 31:264–271.
Foffani G, Humanes-Valera D, Calderon-Munoz F, et al. Spinal cord injury immediately decreases anesthetic requirements in rats. Spinal Cord 2011; 49:822–826.
Pollock JE, Neal JM, Liu SS, et al. Sedation during spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2000; 93:728–734.
Antognini JF, Jinks SL, Atherley R, et al. Spinal anaesthesia indirectly depresses cortical activity associated with electrical stimulation of the reticular formation. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91:233–238.
Doufas AG, Wadhwa A, Shah YM, et al. Block-dependent sedation during epidural anaesthesia is associated with delayed brainstem conduction. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:228–234.
Lanier WL, Iaizzo PA, Milde JH, et al. The cerebral and systemic effects of movement in response to a noxious stimulus in lightly anesthetized dogs. Possible modulation of cerebral function by muscle afferents. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:392–401.
Sitsen E, Olofsen E, Lesman A, et al. Epidural blockade affects the pharmacokinetics of propofol in surgical patients. Anesth Analg 2016; 122:1341–1349.
Marsh B, White M, Morton N, et al. Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children. Br J Anaesth 1991; 67:41–48.
Ishiyama T, Kashimoto S, Oguchi T, et al. Epidural ropivacaine anesthesia decreases the bispectral index during the awake phase and sevoflurane general anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2005; 100:728–732.
Hodgson PS, Liu SS. Epidural lidocaine decreases sevoflurane requirement for adequate depth of anesthesia as measured by the Bispectral Index monitor. Anesthesiology 2001; 94:799–803.
Zhang J, Zhang W, Li B. The effect of epidural anesthesia with different concentrations of ropivacaine on sevoflurane requirements. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:984–986.
Aguilar J, Humanes-Valera D, Alonso-Calvino E, et al. Spinal cord injury immediately changes the state of the brain. J Neurosci 2010; 30:7528–7537.
Niesters M, Sitsen E, Oudejans L, et al. Effect of deafferentation from spinal anesthesia on pain sensitivity and resting-state functional brain connectivity in healthy male volunteers. Brain Connect 2014; 4:404–416.
Bjorkman A, Rosen B, van Westen D, et al. Acute improvement of contralateral hand function after deafferentation. Neuroreport 2004; 15:1861–1865.
Bjorkman A, Rosen B, Lundborg G. Acute improvement of hand sensibility after selective ipsilateral cutaneous forearm anaesthesia. Eur J Neurosci 2004; 20:2733–2736.
Flor H, Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat Rev Neurosci 2006; 7:873–881.
Kazama T, Ikeda K, Morita K, et al. Comparison of the effect-site k(eO)s of propofol for blood pressure and EEG bispectral index in elderly and younger patients. Anesthesiology 1999; 90:1517–1527.
Masui K, Kira M, Kazama T, et al. Early phase pharmacokinetics but not pharmacodynamics are influenced by propofol infusion rate. Anesthesiology 2009; 111:805–817.
Masui K, Upton RN, Doufas AG, et al. The performance of compartmental and physiologically based recirculatory pharmacokinetic models for propofol: a comparison using bolus, continuous, and target-controlled infusion data. Anesth Analg 2010; 111:368–379.
Eleveld DJ, Colin P, Absalom AR, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for propofol for broad application in anaesthesia and sedation. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120:942–959.