4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Neural mechanism of propofol anesthesia in severe depression - A positron emission tomographic study

Journal

ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 5, Pages 1101-1111

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200305000-00012

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The precise neural mechanisms of propofol anesthesia in humans are still unknown. The authors examined the acute effects of propofol on regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) using positron emission tomography in patients with severe depression. Methods: in six severely depressed patients (mean age, 55.0 yr) scheduled for electroconvulsive therapy, anesthetic levels were monitored by electroencephalography, and rCBF was serially quantified in the awake, sedated, and anesthetized states. The authors used high-resolution positron emission tomography with O-15-labeled water and statistical parametric mapping 99 for imaging and analysis of the data. Results. Global cerebral blood flow showed sharp decreases from the awake level during the administration of propofol, decreasing 26.8% in the sedated state and 54.4% in the anesthetized state. Moreover, a dose effect was seen in both parietal cortices and the left lateral prefromal region wit h larger regions of relative decrease in rCBF at higher propofol doses. At the higher dose, the values of rCBF in the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, the pontine tegmentum, and the cerebellar cortex were also affected. Meanwhile, there were few changes of relative rCBF in the basal frontal lobes during both sedated and anesthetized states. Conclusions: As in earlier studies using normal subjects, pronounced suppression in rCBF in the brain stem reticular formation, the thalamus, and the parietal association cortex occurred even in severely depressed patients. However, previously reported decreases in rCBF in the basal frontal lobe were absent in depressed patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available