4.6 Article

Predictive performance of eleven pharmacokinetic models for propofol infusion in children for long-duration anaesthesia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 415-423

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex007

关键词

paediatrics; pharmacokinetics; propofol

资金

  1. Departmental - Department of Anesthesiology, National Defense Medical College, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Predictive performance of eleven published propofol pharmacokinetic models was evaluated for long-duration propofol infusion in children. Methods. Twenty-one aged three-11 yr ASA I-II patients were included. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol or sevoflurane, and maintained with propofol, remifentanil, and fentanyl. Propofol was continuously infused at rates of 4-14mg kg(-1) h(-1) after an initial bolus of 1.5-2.0mg kg(-1). Venous blood samples were obtained every 30-60 min for five h and then every 60-120 min after five h from the start of propofol administration, and immediately after the end of propofol administration. Model performance was assessed with prediction error (PE) derivatives including divergence PE, median PE (MDPE), and median absolute PE (MDAPE) as time-related PE shift, measures for bias, and inaccuracy, respectively. Results. We collected 85 samples over 270 (130) (88-545), mean (SD) (range), min. The Short model for children, and the Schuttler general-purpose model had acceptable performance (-20%<= MDPE <= 20%, MDAPE <= 30%, -4% h(-1) <= divergence PE <= 4% h(-1)). The Short model showed the best performance with the maximum predictive performance metric. Two models developed only using bolus dosing (Shangguan and Saint-Maurice models) and the Paedfusor of the remaining nine models had significant negative divergence PE (<= -6.1% h(-1)). Conclusions. The Short model performed well during continuous infusion up to 545 min. This model might be preferable for target-controlled infusion for long-duration anaesthesia in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据