Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2013
Enteral or parenteral nimodipine treatment: a comparative pharmacokinetic study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scheller Christian, Wienke Andreas, Wurm Franziska, Vogel Anne-Sophie, Simmermacher Sebastian, Prell Julian, Rachinger Jens, Koman Gershom, Strauss Christian, Scheller Konstanze
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS/OBJECT: Oral nimodipine is recommended to reduce poor outcome related to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). In addition, animal experiments and clinical trails revealed a beneficial effect of enteral and parenteral nimodipine for the regeneration of cranial nerves following skull base, laryngeal, and maxillofacial surgery. Despite these findings there is a lack of pharmacokinetic data in the literature, especially concerning its distribution in nerve tissue.
PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND METHODS: Samples were taken from a consecutive series of 57 patients suffering from skull base lesions and treated with nimodipine prophylaxis from the day before surgery until the seventh postoperative day. Both groups received standard dosages for enteral (n = 25) and parenteral (n = 32) nimodipine . Nimodipine levels were measured in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and tissue samples, including vestibular nerves.
RESULTS: Nimodipine levels were significantly higher following parenteral as compared with enteral administration for intraoperative serum (p < 0.001), intraoperative CSF (p < 0.001), tumor tissues (p = 0.01), and postoperative serum (p < 0.001). In addition, nimodipine was significantly more frequently detected in nerve tissue following parenteral administration (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: From a pharmacokinetic point of view, parenteral nimodipine medication leads to higher levels in serum and CSF. Furthermore, traces are more frequently found in nerve tissue following parenteral as compared with enteral nimodipine administration, at least in the early course.
PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND METHODS: Samples were taken from a consecutive series of 57 patients suffering from skull base lesions and treated with nimodipine prophylaxis from the day before surgery until the seventh postoperative day. Both groups received standard dosages for enteral (n = 25) and parenteral (n = 32) nimodipine . Nimodipine levels were measured in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and tissue samples, including vestibular nerves.
RESULTS: Nimodipine levels were significantly higher following parenteral as compared with enteral administration for intraoperative serum (p < 0.001), intraoperative CSF (p < 0.001), tumor tissues (p = 0.01), and postoperative serum (p < 0.001). In addition, nimodipine was significantly more frequently detected in nerve tissue following parenteral administration (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: From a pharmacokinetic point of view, parenteral nimodipine medication leads to higher levels in serum and CSF. Furthermore, traces are more frequently found in nerve tissue following parenteral as compared with enteral nimodipine administration, at least in the early course.