The subjective effects of low-dose propofol. A double-blind study to evaluate dimensions of sedation and consciousness with low-dose propofol

Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of sedatives and analgesics

The agents used for sedation and analgesia during endoscopy have complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Knowledge of these characteristics is necessary for determining the proper agent and dose for specific patient needs. Short-acting agents, such as fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol, provide rapid sedation with a short duration of action that allows patients to return to normal functioning rapidly. When designing a dosing regimen with these agents, age and organ (liver, kidney) function of patients and concomitant medications that may interfere with metabolic and elimination pathways must be considered.

Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults

Propofol (Diprivan) is a phenolic derivative with sedative and hypnotic properties but is unrelated to other sedative/hypnotic agents. Formulated as an oil-in-water emulsion for intravenous use, it is highly lipophilic and rapidly crosses the blood-brain barrier resulting in a rapid onset of action. Emergence from sedation is also rapid because of a fast redistribution into peripheral tissues and metabolic clearance. The depth of sedation increases in a dose-dependent manner. In well designed clinical trials in patients receiving sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) for a variety of indications, propofol provided adequate sedation for a similar proportion of time to midazolam, but the rate of recovery was faster with propofol. Even after periods of prolonged sedation (>72 hours), propofol was generally associated with a faster time to recovery than midazolam. Propofol facilitated better predictability of recovery and an improved control of the depth of sedation in response to titration than midazolam. In patients sedated following head trauma, propofol reduced or maintained intracranial pressure. Propofol is associated with generally good haemodynamic stability but induces a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure and heart rate. Bolus administration may cause transient hypotension, and slow initial infusions are recommended in most patients. Serum triglyceride concentrations should be monitored during prolonged infusions (>3 days) because of the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia. The administration of 2% propofol can reduce this risk. Strict aseptic technique must be used during the handling of the product to prevent accidental extrinsic microbial contamination. Despite a higher acquisition cost with propofol, most studies of short-term sedation (approximately <3 days) showed that overall costs were lower with propofol than with midazolam, because a faster time to extubation reduced total ICU costs. However, as the period of sedation increased, the cost difference decreased.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of propofol in the sedation of adults in the ICU is well established, and clinical trials have demonstrated a similar quality of sedation to midazolam. Because of a rapid distribution and clearance, the duration of action of propofol is short and recovery is rapid. Emergence from sedation is more rapid with propofol than with midazolam, even after long-term administration (>72 hours), which enables better control of the depth of sedation in response to titration and more predictable recovery times. Thus, for the ICU sedation of adults in a variety of clinical settings, propofol provides effective sedation with a more rapid and predictable emergence time than midazolam.

Blood propofol concentration and psychomotor effects on driving skills

We studied psychomotor performance in 10 healthy volunteers during recovery after a target-controlled infusion of propofol. Choice reaction time, dual task tracking with secondary reaction time and a within-list recognition task were assessed at target blood propofol concentrations of 0.8, 0.4 and 0.2 microgram ml-1. Performance was impaired most at the highest blood propofol concentration (choice reaction time increased by a mean of 247 ms and secondary reaction time by a mean of 178 ms). Choice reaction time and dual task tracking with secondary reaction time were the most sensitive and reliable methods of assessment (significant difference from baseline (P < 0.05) at a propofol concentration of 0.2 microgram ml-1 with choice and secondary reaction time testing). Within-list recognition assessment of memory was not sufficiently sensitive at very low propofol concentrations. The impairment in choice and secondary reaction time with a blood propofol concentration of 0.2 microgram ml-1 was less than that observed with a blood alcohol concentration of 50 mg 100 ml-1 and no greater than that observed with a blood alcohol concentration of 20 mg 100 ml-1 in a previous study involving healthy volunteers.

Comparison of the intravenous reinforcing effects of propofol and methohexital in baboons

Propofol is a widely used intravenous anesthetic that can directly activate and positively modulate the GABA(A)-receptor. Propofol is not currently regulated under the USA Controlled Substances Act. The present study evaluated the intravenous reinforcing effects of propofol compared to the intravenous barbiturate anesthetic methohexital in baboons using a procedure in which doses of the test drug were substituted for a standard cocaine dose. Drug or vehicle was available for self-injection during daily 5.5-h sessions under a fixed-ratio 120 or 160 schedule of reinforcement. A 40-min timeout after each injection limited the maximum of injections per session to eight. Food pellets were available continuously during the session under a fixed ratio 10 schedule of reinforcement. Self-injection of cocaine (0.001-0.32 mg/kg/injection) and vehicle was characterized first. Cocaine maintained self-injection in a dose-dependent manner, with peak injections maintained by 0.32 mg/kg. Vehicle and each dose of propofol (0.1-1.0 mg/kg/injection) and methohexital (0.01-1.0 mg/kg/injection) were substituted for 0.32 mg/kg cocaine for at least 10 sessions. Propofol and methohexital maintained self-injection greater than vehicle in all three baboons, and these effects were dose dependent. Methohexital maintained peak mean levels of self-injection that were >6 injections/day at doses of 0.56 and 1.0 mg/kg, and did not alter food intake systematically. Propofol maintained peak mean levels of self-injection at 1.0 mg/kg that ranged from 2.2 to >6 injections/day across the baboons. Food intake was increased slightly above vehicle levels by propofol self-injection in two baboons, and was decreased in the third baboon. These data indicate that propofol, like methohexital, can function as a positive reinforcer.

Propofol sedation during awake craniotomy for seizures: patient-controlled administration versus neurolept analgesia

This prospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol during awake seizure surgery performed under bupivacaine scalp blocks. Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive either propofol PCS combined with a basal infusion of propofol (n = 20) or neurolept analgesia using an initial bolus dose of fentanyl and droperidol followed by a fentanyl infusion (n = 17). Both groups received supplemental fentanyl and dimenhydrinate for intraoperative pain and nausea, respectively. Comparisons were made between groups for sedation, memory, and cognitive function, patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications. Levels of intraoperative sedation and patient satisfaction were similar between groups. Memory and cognitive function were well preserved in both groups. The incidence of transient episodes of ventilatory rate depression (<8 bpm) was more frequent among the propofol patients (5 vs 0, P = 0.04), particularly after supplemental doses of opioid. Intraoperative seizures were more common among the neurolept patients (7 vs 0, P = 0.002). PCS using propofol represents an effective alternative to neurolept analgesia during awake seizure surgery performed in a monitored care environment.

Effects of sedation with midazolam or propofol on cognition and psychomotor functions

PURPOSE

The study compared the effects of midazolam and propofol on explicit and implicit memory, cognition, and psychomotor function in patients undergoing oral surgical procedures with local anesthesia and conscious sedation.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients were tested in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received a bolus dose of midazolam, 0.1 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of saline. The other group received a bolus dose of propofol, 1.0 mg/ kg, followed by a continuous infusion of propofol, 65 micrograms/kg/min. Subjective rating questionnaires and tapping, memory, and Digit Symbol Substitution tests were administered. Testing was done at baseline, 10 minutes after the drugs were given, 10 minutes after surgery ended and 10 minutes later.

RESULTS

The midazolam and propofol groups did not differ significantly on any demographic variables. Both drugs produced mental and physical sedation, which did not become substantially attenuated during the time studied. Both tranquilization and attitudes or other feelings showed smaller drug effects than mental and physical sedation. Tapping was decreased by both drugs 10 minutes after treatment, but not postsurgery. Performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution test was below baseline levels for both drugs at 10 minutes after treatment, but only for midazolam in the postsurgery assessment; at 10 minutes after treatment, propofol was associated with poorer performance than midazolam. Immediate and delayed explicit recall were impaired by both drugs 10 minutes after treatment. Immediate and delayed recall were lower for midazolam than propofol postsurgery, but only the difference on immediate recall was significant. Implicit memory was spared by both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam and propofol generally produced equivalent impairments, but the duration of the effects of propofol was shorter. Unlike explicit memory, implicit memory resisted impairment.

Propofol. An overview of its pharmacology and a review of its clinical efficacy in intensive care sedation

Propofol is a phenolic derivative that is structurally unrelated to other sedative hypnotic agents. It has been used extensively as an anaesthetic agent, particularly in procedures of short duration. More recently it has been investigated as a sedative in the intensive care unit (ICU) where it produces sedation and hypnosis in a dose-dependent manner. Propofol also provides control of stress responses and has anticonvulsant and amnesic properties. Importantly, its pharmacokinetic properties are characterised by a rapid onset and short duration of action. Noncomparative and comparative trials have evaluated the use of propofol for the sedation of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU (postsurgical, general medical, trauma). Overall, propofol provides satisfactory sedation and is associated with good haemodynamic stability. It produces results similar to or better than those seen with midazolam or other comparator agents when the quality of sedation and/or the amount of time that patients were at adequate levels of sedation are measured. Patients sedated with propofol also tend to have a faster recovery (time to spontaneous ventilation or extubation) than patients sedated with midazolam. Although most studies did not measure time to discharge from the ICU, propofol tended to be superior to midazolam in this respect. In a few small trials in patients with head trauma or following neurosurgery, propofol was associated with adequate sedation and control of cerebral haemodynamics. The rapid recovery of patients after stopping propofol makes it an attractive option in the ICU, particularly for patients requiring only short term sedation. In short term sedation, propofol, despite its generally higher acquisition costs, has the potential to reduce overall medical costs if patients are able to be extubated and discharged from the ICU sooner. Because of the potential for hyperlipidaemia and the development of tolerance to its sedative effects, and because of the reduced need for rapid reversal of drug effects in long term sedation, the usefulness of propofol in long term situations is less well established. While experience with propofol for the sedation of patients in the ICU is extensive, there are still areas requiring further investigation. These include studies in children, trials examining cerebral and haemodynamic outcomes following long term administration and in patients with head trauma and, importantly, pharmacoeconomic investigations to determine those situations where propofol is cost effective. In the meantime, propofol is a well established treatment native to benzodiazepines and/or other hypnotics or analgesics when sedation of patients in the ICU is required. In particular, propofol possesses unique advantages over these agents in patients requiring only short term sedation.