Anesthesiology · 2007
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol microemulsion and lipid emulsion after an intravenous bolus and variable rate infusion.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Kim Kye-Min, Choi Byung-Moon, Park Si-Won, Lee Soo-Han, Christensen Lane V, Zhou Jiaye, Yoo Byung-Hoon, Shin Hye-Won, Bae Kyun-Seop, Kern Steven E, Kang Sung-Hong, Noh Gyu-Jeong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the induction and recovery characteristics of microemulsion propofol (Aquafol; Daewon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety profile were investigated. Lipid emulsion propofol (Diprivan; AstraZeneca, London, United Kingdom) was used as a comparator.
METHODS: Thirty-one healthy volunteers aged 20-79 yr were given an intravenous bolus of propofol 2 mg/kg, followed by variable rate infusion for 60 min. Each volunteer was studied twice with different formulations at an interval of 1 week. Arterial concentrations of propofol were measured, and Bispectral Index was used as a surrogate measure of propofol effect. The induction and recovery characteristics including bioequivalence were evaluated by noncompartmental analysis. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were investigated using a population approach with mixed effects modeling. The rate, severity, and causal relation of adverse events were analyzed.
RESULTS: Both formulations were bioequivalent. The observed time to peak effect after a bolus of both formulations was 1.5 min. Plasma concentration of propofol at loss of consciousness, time to loss of consciousness after a bolus, and time to recovery of consciousness after discontinuation of infusion did not show significant differences. The population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics revealed a variety of differences between two formulations. Aquafol showed similar safety profile to Diprivan.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of Aquafol were not different from those of Diprivan within the dose range in this study.
METHODS: Thirty-one healthy volunteers aged 20-79 yr were given an intravenous bolus of propofol 2 mg/kg, followed by variable rate infusion for 60 min. Each volunteer was studied twice with different formulations at an interval of 1 week. Arterial concentrations of propofol were measured, and Bispectral Index was used as a surrogate measure of propofol effect. The induction and recovery characteristics including bioequivalence were evaluated by noncompartmental analysis. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were investigated using a population approach with mixed effects modeling. The rate, severity, and causal relation of adverse events were analyzed.
RESULTS: Both formulations were bioequivalent. The observed time to peak effect after a bolus of both formulations was 1.5 min. Plasma concentration of propofol at loss of consciousness, time to loss of consciousness after a bolus, and time to recovery of consciousness after discontinuation of infusion did not show significant differences. The population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics revealed a variety of differences between two formulations. Aquafol showed similar safety profile to Diprivan.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of Aquafol were not different from those of Diprivan within the dose range in this study.