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

External validation of the modified Marsh and Schnider models for medium-chain triglyceride propofol in target-controlled infusion anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Propofol formulated with medium- and long-chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT propofol) has rapidly replaced propofol formulated with long-chain triglycerides (LCT propofol). Despite this shift, the modified Marsh and Schnider pharmacokinetic models developed using LCT propofol are still widely used for target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. This study aimed to validate the external applicability of these models by evaluating their predictive performance during TCI of MCT/LCT propofol in general anesthesia.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 48) undergoing elective surgery received MCT/LCT propofol via a TCI system using either the modified Marsh or Schnider models. Blood samples were collected at various target propofol concentrations and at specific time points, including the loss of consciousness and the recovery of consciousness (13 samples per patient). The actual plasma concentration of propofol was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. The predictive performance of each pharmacokinetic model was assessed by calculating four parameters: inaccuracy, bias, divergence, and wobble.

RESULTS

Both the modified Marsh and Schnider models demonstrated predictive performances within clinically acceptable ranges for MCT/LCT propofol. The inaccuracy values were 24.4% for the modified Marsh model and 26.9% for the Schnider model. Both models showed an overall positive bias, 16.4% for the modified Marsh model and 16.6% for the Schnider model. The predictive performance of MCT/LCT propofol was comparable to that of LCT propofol, suggesting formulation changes might exert only a minor impact on the reliability of the TCI system during general anesthesia. Additionally, both models exhibited higher bias and inaccuracy at target concentrations ranging from 3.5 ~ 5 ug/ml than at concentrations between 2 ~ 3 ug/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Marsh and Schnider models, initially developed for LCT propofol, remain clinically acceptable for TCI with MCT/LCT propofol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at the Clinical Research Information Service of the Korean National Institute of Health ( https://cris.nih.go.kr ; registration number: KCT0002191; 06/01/2017).

The Development and Optimization of Lipid-Based Self-Nanoemulsifying Drug Delivery Systems for the Intravenous Delivery of Propofol

PURPOSE

Propofol is a relatively short-acting potent anesthetic lipophilic drug used during short surgical procedures. Despite the success of propofol intravenous emulsions, drawbacks to such formulations include inherent emulsion instability, the lack of a safe vehicle to prevent sepsis, and concern regarding hyperlipidemia-related side effects. The aim of the current investigation was to develop a novel, lipid-based self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system (SNEDDS) for propofol with improved stability and anesthetic activity for human use.

METHODS

A series of SNEDDS formulations were developed using naturally obtained medium-chain/long-chain mono-, di-, and triglycerides, glyceryl monocaprylate, and water-soluble cosolvents with hydrogenated castor oil constructing ternary phase diagrams for propofol. The developed SNEDDS formulations were characterized using visual observation, particle size analysis, zeta potential, transmission electron microscopy, equilibrium solubility, in vitro dynamic dispersion and stability, and in vivo sleeping disorder studies in rats. The in vivo bioavailability of the SNEDDSs in rats was also studied to compare the representative formulations with the marketed product Diprivan^®.

RESULTS

Medium-chain triglycerides (M810) with mono-diglycerides (CMCM) as an oil blend and hydrogenated castor oil (KHS15) as a surfactant were selected as key ingredients in ternary phase diagram studies. The nanoemulsifying regions were identified from the studies and a number of SNEDDSs were formulated. Results from the characterization studies demonstrated the formation of efficient nanosized particles (28-45 nm globule size, 0.10-0.20 PDI) in the optimized SNEDDS with a drug loading of 50 mg/g, which is almost 500-fold higher than free propofol. TEM analysis showed the formation of spherical and homogeneous nanoparticles of less than 50 nm. The dissolution rate of the representative SNEDDS was faster than raw propofol and able to maintain 99% propofol in aqueous solution for around 24 h. The optimized liquid SNEDDS formulation was found to be thermodynamically stable. The intravenous administration of the SNEDDS in male Wistar rats induced a sleeping time of 73-88 min. The mean plasma concentrations after the IV administration of propofol nano-formulations PF2-SNEDDS and PF8-SNEDDS were 1348.07 ± 27.31 and 1138.66 ± 44.97 µg/mL, as compared to 891.44 ± 26.05 µg/mL (p = 0.05) observed after the IV administration of raw propofol.

CONCLUSION

Propofol-loaded SNEDDS formulations could be a potential pharmaceutical product with improved stability, bioavailability, and anesthetic activity.

Median Effective Dose of Lidocaine for the Prevention of Pain Caused by the Injection of Propofol Formulated with Medium- and Long-Chain Triglycerides Based on Lean Body Weight

OBJECTIVE

To determine the median effective dose (ED50) of prophylactic intravenous lidocaine for the prevention of propofol medium-chain triglyceride/long-chain triglyceride (MCT/LCT) emulsion injection pain.

DESIGN

Prospective trial, Dixon up-and-down sequential method.

SETTING

Operating room of a single hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients aged 18-65 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status I or II who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The initial dose of prophylactic lidocaine before propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection was set at 0.5 mg/kg lean body weight (LBW). The lidocaine dose was adjusted according to the degree of patients' injection pain using the Dixon up-and-down sequential method.

MEASUREMENTS

The ED50 and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of lidocaine were calculated using the Dixon-Massey formula. Vital signs and adverse effects were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), patients were asked if they recalled feeling any injection pain with visual analog scale (VAS) evaluation.

RESULTS

The ED50 of lidocaine for the prevention of propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection pain was 0.306 mg/kg LBW (95% CI, 0.262-0.357 mg/kg LBW). No adverse reactions to lidocaine occurred. In the PACU, 90.9% of patients who experienced injection pain recalled this pain (VAS score, 2.8±1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intravenous lidocaine (0.306 mg/kg LBW) effectively prevented propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection pain in 50% of patients scheduled for elective surgery under GA with no adverse reaction occurring.

Impact of a preoperative conversational hypnotic session on propofol consumption using closed-loop anesthetic induction guided by the bispectral index: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The automated administration of propofol in a closed loop could be used to objectively evaluate the nonpharmacological anesthetic action of hypnotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a conversational hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anesthetic induction.

DESIGN

A randomized, usual care-controlled, single-center, patient-blind trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care center in France from November 2012 to December 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients scheduled for a surgical procedure under general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Before surgery, patients were randomized with a computer-generated random list for a preoperative conversational hypnosis session or for usual care. The conversational hypnosis session was conducted and individualized by the therapist with an academic degree in hypnosis in a quiet environment. Anesthetic induction was automatically performed by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the bispectral index in a closed loop.

OUTCOME

Primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anesthesia induction, defined as a Bispectral index less than 60 for at least 30 seconds.

RESULTS

The study included 48 patients in the hypnosis group and 49 patients in the control group. No difference in propofol consumption to obtain anesthesia induction was observed between the groups (total dose: 138.6 [67.5] and 130 [47.9] mg, P = .47; adjusted dose: 2.15 [1.09] and 1.95 [0.66] mg/kg, P = .28, for the hypnosis and control groups, respectively). Hetero-evaluation of arm movement during propofol injection (no reaction: 98% and 74%; P = .004, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) and face reaction at venous access placement (no reaction 59% and 30%; P = .017, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) were lower in the hypnosis group. No adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in propofol consumption was observed in this study designed to evaluate the effect of a hypnotic conversational session on anesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration.

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine pre-administration and local warming of the intravenous access site on propofol injection pain: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine reduces pain that occurs upon the intravenous injection of propofol. But, there are few non-pharmacological nursing interventions to reduce propofol injection pain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of lidocaine pre-administration and local warming of the intravenous access site on propofol injection pain.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The 555 bed, non-teaching National Cancer Center in Kyunggido, South Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 96 patients who underwent thyroidectomy under total intravenous general anesthesia with propofol were randomly allocated to the control, lidocaine pre-administration (LA) or local warming (LW) group.

METHODS

All three groups received 2% propofol with an effect-site target at 3μg/mL for induction dose. The control group received 2% propofol with no intervention. The lidocaine pre-administration group received 2% propofol 30s after 1% lidocaine 30mg. The local warming group received 2% propofol after warming of the intravenous access site for 1min using 43°C forced air. Propofol injection pain was assessed by four-point verbal categorial scoring (VCS), numerical rating scale (NRS) and surgical pleth index (SPI).

RESULTS

Pain VCS of the LA group (mean±SD, 1.11±0.45) was significantly reduced (U=-3.92, p<.001) compared to the control group (mean±SD, 1.71±0.74). Pain VCS of the LW group (mean±SD, 0.76±0.44) was significantly reduced (U=-5.17, p<.001) compared to the control group (mean±SD, 1.71±0.74). Pain VCS of the LW group was significantly reduced compared to the LA group (U=-3.33, p=.001]. Pain NRS of the LA group (mean±SD, 4.31±2.32) was significantly reduced (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.63-3.00; p=.003) compared to the control group (mean±SD, 6.13±2.39). Pain NRS of the LW group (mean±SD, 3.06±2.37) was significantly reduced (mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.63-4.51; p<.009) compared to the control group. There were significant differences in pain NRS between the LA group and the LW group (mean difference, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.09-2.42; p=.035). SPI of the LA group (mean±SD, 64.1±16.3) was significantly reduced (mean difference control versus LA, 8.36; 95% CI, 1.64-15.1; p=.016) compared to the control group (mean±SD, 72.5±9.56). SPI of the LW group (mean±SD, 55.0±16.2) was significantly reduced (mean difference control versus LW, 17.4; 95% CI, 10.8-24.0; p<.001) compared to the control group. There was a significant difference in SPI between the LA group and LW group (mean difference, 9.06; 95% CI, 1.02-17.1; p=.028).

CONCLUSION

Local warming of the intravenous access site by 43°C forced air for 1min is slightly more effective in reducing propofol injection pain compared to lidocaine pre-administration.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Propofol: a review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation

Propofol is an intravenous agent used commonly for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, procedural, and critical care sedation in children. The mechanisms of action on the central nervous system involve interactions at various neurotransmitter receptors, especially the gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. Approved for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989, its use for induction of anesthesia in children less than 3 years of age still remains off-label. Despite its wide use in pediatric anesthesia, there is conflicting literature about its safety and serious adverse effects in particular subsets of children. Particularly as children are not "little adults", in this review, we emphasize the maturational aspects of propofol pharmacokinetics. Despite the myriad of propofol pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies and the ability to use allometrical scaling to smooth out differences due to size and age, there is no optimal model that can be used in target controlled infusion pumps for providing closed loop total intravenous anesthesia in children. As the commercial formulation of propofol is a nutrient-rich emulsion, the risk for bacterial contamination exists despite the Food and Drug Administration mandating addition of antimicrobial preservative, calling for manufacturers' directions to discard open vials after 6 h. While propofol has advantages over inhalation anesthesia such as less postoperative nausea and emergence delirium in children, pain on injection remains a problem even with newer formulations. Propofol is known to depress mitochondrial function by its action as an uncoupling agent in oxidative phosphorylation. This has implications for children with mitochondrial diseases and the occurrence of propofol-related infusion syndrome, a rare but seriously life-threatening complication of propofol. At the time of this review, there is no direct evidence in humans for propofol-induced neurotoxicity to the infant brain; however, current concerns of neuroapoptosis in developing brains induced by propofol persist and continue to be a focus of research.

Feasibility of Closed-loop Titration of Propofol and Remifentanil Guided by the Bispectral Monitor in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients

Background:

This study was designed to assess the feasibility of dual closed-loop titration of propofol and remifentanil guided solely by the Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor in pediatric and adolescent patients during anesthesia.

Methods:

Children undergoing elective surgery in this single-blind randomized study were allocated into the closed-loop (auto) or manual (manual) group. Primary outcome was the percentage of time with the BIS in the range 40 to 60 (BIS40–60). Secondary outcomes were the percentage of deep (BIS&lt;40) anesthesia and drug consumption. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

Results:

Twenty-three patients (12 [10 to 14] yr) were assigned to the auto group and 19 (14 [7 to 14] yr) to the manual group. The closed-loop controller was able to provide induction and maintenance for all patients. The percentage of time with BIS40–60 was greater in the auto group (87% [75 to 96] vs. 72% [48 to 79]; P = 0.002), with a decrease in the percentage of BIS&lt;40 (7% [2 to 17] vs. 21% [11 to 38]; P = 0.002). Propofol (2.4 [1.9 to 3.3] vs. 1.7 [1.2 to 2.8] mg/kg) and remifentanil (2.3 [2.0 to 3.0] vs. 2.5 [1.2 to 4.3] μg/kg) consumptions were similar in auto versus manual groups during induction, respectively. During maintenance, propofol consumption (8.2 [6.0 to 10.2] vs. 7.9 [7.2 to 9.1] mg kg−1 h−1; P = 0.89) was similar between the two groups, but remifentanil consumption was greater in the auto group (0.39 [0.22 to 0.60] vs. 0.22 [0.17 to 0.32] μg kg−1 min−1; P = 0.003). Perioperative adverse events and length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit were similar.

Conclusion:

Intraoperative automated control of hypnosis and analgesia guided by the BIS is clinically feasible in pediatric and adolescent patients and outperformed skilled manual control.

Metrology in medicine: from measurements to decision, with specific reference to anesthesia and intensive care

Metrology is the science of measurements. Although of critical importance in medicine and especially in critical care, frequent confusion in terms and definitions impact either interphysician communications or understanding of manufacturers’ and engineers’ instructions and limitations when using devices. In this review, we first list the terms defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures regarding quantities and units, measurements, devices for measurement, properties of measuring devices, and measurement standards. The traditional tools for assessing the most important measurement quality criteria are also reviewed with clinical examples for diagnosis, alarm, and titration purposes, as well as for assessing the uncertainty of reference methods.