4.7 Article

Assessment of propofol concentrations in human breath and blood by means of HS-SPME-GC-MS

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 395, Issue 1-2, Pages 32-37

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2008.04.021

Keywords

propofol; breath analysis; HS-SPME-CC-MS; anesthetic monitoring; whole blood

Funding

  1. European Commission
  2. University of Rostock [889026]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Breath analysis could offer a non-invasive means of drug monitoring if adequate analytical methods and robust correlations between drug concentrations in breath and blood can be established. We therefore applied headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) to assess breath and blood concentrations of the intravenous drug propofol in patients under anesthesia or sedation. Methods: Arterial, central- and peripheral-venous blood and alveolar breath samples were drawn in parallel from 16 mechanically ventilated patients. In addition, six patients undergoing lung resection were investigated. Substances were preconcentrated by means of HS-SPME, separated by CC and identified by MS. Results: Propofol detection limits were 0.006 nmol/L in breath and 72.20 nmol/L in blood, the quantitation limits were 0.009 nmol/L and 75.89 nmol/L (end tidal breath/blood). Intraday precision was 8-11%, recovery 97-103%. Propofol concentrations were 0.04-0.5 nmol/L in breath and 2-120 mu mol/L in blood. Only arterial propofol concentrations showed a correlation with concentrations in breath. Impaired ventilation/perfusion ratios in patients under lung resection resulted in changes of correlation coefficients. Conclusions: Reliable and precise analytical methods such as HS-SPME-GC-MS represent basic requirements if breath analysis is to be set up for non-invasive monitoring of intravenous drugs and control of anesthesia. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available