4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Cerebral blood flow affects dose requirements of intracarotid propofol for electrocerebral silence

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 2, 页码 290-298

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200602000-00014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM K08 00698, K08 GM000698, K08 GM000698-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The authors hypothesized that cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes will affect the dose of intracarotid propofol required to produce electrocerebral silence. Methods: The authors tested their hypothesis on New Zealand White rabbits. The first group of 9 animals received intracarotid propofol during (1) normoventilation, (2) hyperventilation, and (3) hypoventilation. The second group of 14 animals received intracarotid propofol with or without concurrent intraarterial verapamil, a potent cerebral vasodilator. The third group of 8 animals received bolus injection of propofol during normotension, during severe cerebral hypoperfusion, and after hemodynamic recovery. Results: In the first group, there was a linear correlation between the dose of intracarotid propofol and percent change (%Delta) in CBF from the baseline due to changes in the minute ventilation, Total Dose (y) = 0.17 + 0.012* %Delta CBF (x), n = 27, r = 0.76. In the second group, the dose of propofol was also a function of CBF change after verapamil, Total Dose (y) = 0.98 + 0.1* %Delta CBF (x), n = 14, r = 0.75. In the third group, the duration of electrocerebral silence after intracarotid propofol (3 mg) was significantly increased with concurrent cerebral hypoperfusion compared with prehypoperfusion and posthypoperfusion values (141 +/- 38 vs. 19 +/- 24 and 16 +/- 12 s, respectively, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The authors conclude that CBF affects the dose requirements of intracarotid propofol required to produce electrocerebral silence. Furthermore, the manipulation of CBF might be a useful tool to enhance the efficacy of intracarotid drugs.

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