Schnider and Eleveld Models for Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion Anesthesia: A Clinical Comparison.

awareness intraoperative complications intraoperative monitoring intravenous anesthesia pharmacokinetics propofol

Journal

Life (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-1729
Titre abrégé: Life (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101580444

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 18 09 2023
revised: 10 10 2023
accepted: 12 10 2023
medline: 28 10 2023
pubmed: 28 10 2023
entrez: 28 10 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Various pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models have been developed to accurately dose propofol administration during total intravenous anesthesia with target-controlled infusion (TIVA-TCI). We aim to clinically compare the performance of the Schnider model and the new and general-purpose Eleveld PK/PD model during TIVA-TCI. We conducted a prospective observational study at a single center, enrolling 78 female patients, including 37 adults (aged < 65 years) and 41 elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). These patients underwent breast surgery with propofol-remifentanil TIVA-TCI guided by the bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (target value 40-60) and the surgical plethysmographic index (SPI) for antinociception monitoring (target value 20-50) without neuromuscular blockade. The concentration at the effect site of propofol (CeP) at loss of responsiveness (LoR) during anesthesia maintenance (MA) and at return of responsiveness (RoR), the duration of surgery and anesthesia (min), the time to RoR (min), the propofol total dose (mg), the deepening of anesthesia events (DAEs), burst suppression events (BSEs), light anesthesia events (LAEs) and unwanted spontaneous responsiveness events (USREs) were considered to compare the two PK/PD models. Patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD model showed a lower CeP at LoR (1.7 (1.36-2.25) vs. 3.60 (3.00-4.18) μg/mL, The Schnider and Eleveld PK/PD models impact CePs differently. A greater incidence of DAEs and BSEs in the elderly suggests more attention is necessary in this group of patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD than with the Schnider model.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Various pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models have been developed to accurately dose propofol administration during total intravenous anesthesia with target-controlled infusion (TIVA-TCI). We aim to clinically compare the performance of the Schnider model and the new and general-purpose Eleveld PK/PD model during TIVA-TCI.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a prospective observational study at a single center, enrolling 78 female patients, including 37 adults (aged < 65 years) and 41 elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). These patients underwent breast surgery with propofol-remifentanil TIVA-TCI guided by the bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (target value 40-60) and the surgical plethysmographic index (SPI) for antinociception monitoring (target value 20-50) without neuromuscular blockade. The concentration at the effect site of propofol (CeP) at loss of responsiveness (LoR) during anesthesia maintenance (MA) and at return of responsiveness (RoR), the duration of surgery and anesthesia (min), the time to RoR (min), the propofol total dose (mg), the deepening of anesthesia events (DAEs), burst suppression events (BSEs), light anesthesia events (LAEs) and unwanted spontaneous responsiveness events (USREs) were considered to compare the two PK/PD models.
RESULTS RESULTS
Patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD model showed a lower CeP at LoR (1.7 (1.36-2.25) vs. 3.60 (3.00-4.18) μg/mL,
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The Schnider and Eleveld PK/PD models impact CePs differently. A greater incidence of DAEs and BSEs in the elderly suggests more attention is necessary in this group of patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD than with the Schnider model.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37895446
pii: life13102065
doi: 10.3390/life13102065
pmc: PMC10608783
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Br J Anaesth. 2021 Jan;126(1):265-278
pubmed: 33081972
Anaesthesia. 2014 May;69(5):420-8
pubmed: 24738799
Anesthesiology. 1998 May;88(5):1170-82
pubmed: 9605675
Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2012 Aug;33(8):1080-4
pubmed: 22842732
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 22;15(12):e0244145
pubmed: 33351856
Anesthesiology. 2012 Apr;116(4):946-59
pubmed: 22314293
Anesthesiology. 1999 Jun;90(6):1502-16
pubmed: 10360845
Anesthesiology. 1997 Jan;86(1):24-33
pubmed: 9009936
Anaesthesia. 2016 Mar;71(3):306-14
pubmed: 26682512
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Jan;38(1):73-81
pubmed: 33074943
Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Dec 22;13:13-24
pubmed: 29317806
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Nov;127(5):704-712
pubmed: 34465469
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010 Apr;54(4):447-52
pubmed: 20003124
Anesthesiology. 2010 May;112(5):1175-83
pubmed: 20418698
Br J Anaesth. 2018 May;120(5):942-959
pubmed: 29661412
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Sep;117(3):371-4
pubmed: 27543532
Anaesthesia. 2007 Jul;62(7):661-6
pubmed: 17567340
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Nov;22(11):1139-45
pubmed: 24006330
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Sep;123(3):288-297
pubmed: 31279479
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Oct;39(5):629-630
pubmed: 32299755
Anesthesiology. 2004 Jun;100(6):1353-72
pubmed: 15166553
J Clin Anesth. 2023 Jun;86:111045
pubmed: 36680980
Br J Anaesth. 2007 Sep;99(3):359-67
pubmed: 17609248
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Feb;126(2):386-394
pubmed: 33317804
Anesthesiology. 1997 Jan;86(1):10-23
pubmed: 9009935
Br J Anaesth. 2009 Jul;103(1):26-37
pubmed: 19520702
Anaesthesia. 2014 Aug;69(8):899-910
pubmed: 24905798
Restor Dent Endod. 2017 May;42(2):152-155
pubmed: 28503482
Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2011 Jul-Aug;61(4):397-408
pubmed: 21724003
J Clin Med. 2022 Apr 28;11(9):
pubmed: 35566617
BMC Anesthesiol. 2015 Apr 28;15:61
pubmed: 25928189
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Apr;110(4):622-8
pubmed: 23220856
Anaesthesia. 2013 Dec;68(12):1232-8
pubmed: 24032636
Anesthesiology. 2020 Jun;132(6):1458-1468
pubmed: 32032096
Anesthesiology. 2003 Feb;98(2):312-22
pubmed: 12552187
Anaesthesia. 2018 Jan;73(1):40-48
pubmed: 28872658
Br J Anaesth. 2022 Aug;129(2):e33-e35
pubmed: 35654630

Auteurs

Federico Linassi (F)

Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Università Degli Studi di Padova, Via Marzolo 5, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Treviso Regional Hospital, AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 31100 Treviso, Italy.

Paolo Zanatta (P)

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Treviso Regional Hospital, AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 31100 Treviso, Italy.

Leonardo Spano (L)

Department of Medicine-DIMED, Section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, 35100 Padova, Italy.

Paolo Burelli (P)

Department of Breast Oncologic Surgery, Treviso Regional Hospital, AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 31100 Treviso, Italy.

Antonio Farnia (A)

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Treviso Regional Hospital, AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 31100 Treviso, Italy.

Michele Carron (M)

Department of Medicine-DIMED, Section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, 35100 Padova, Italy.

Classifications MeSH