4.6 Article

Esketamine counters opioid-induced respiratory depression

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 1117-1127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.02.021

关键词

esketamine; opioid; respiratory compromise; respiratory depression; reversal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Opioids can produce life-threatening respiratory depression. This study tested whether subanaesthetic doses of esketamine stimulate breathing in an established human model of opioid-induced respiratory depression. Methods: In a study with a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover design, 12 healthy, young volunteers of either sex received a dose escalating infusion of esketamine (cumulative dose 40 mg infused in 1 h) on top of remifentanil-induced respiratory depression. A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis was performed with sites of drug action at baseline ventilation, ventilatory CO2-chemosensitivity, or both. Results: Remifentanil reduced isohypercapnic ventilation (end-tidal PCO2 6.5 kPa) by approximately 40% (from 20 to 12 litre min(-1)) in esketamine and placebo arms of the study, through an effect on baseline ventilation and ventilatory CO2 sensitivity. The reduction in ventilation was related to a remifentanil effect on ventilatory CO2 sensitivity (similar to 39%) and on baseline ventilation (similar to 61%). Esketamine increased breathing through an exclusive stimulatory effect on ventilatory CO2 sensitivity. The remifentanil concentration that reduced ventilatory CO2 sensitivity by 50% (C-50) was doubled at an esketamine concentration of 127 (84-191) ng ml(-1) [median (interquartile range)]; the esketamine effect was rapid and driven by plasma pharmacokinetics. Placebo had no systematic effect on opioid-induced respiratory depression. Conclusions: Esketamine effectively countered remifentanil-induced respiratory depression, an effect that was attributed to an increase in remifentanil-reduced ventilatory CO2 chemosensitivity.

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