4.6 Article

Recirculatory model of fentanyl disposition with the brain as the target organ

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 687-697

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeh261

关键词

brain, cerebral blood flow; heart, cardiac output; pharmacokinetics, brain; pharmacokinetics, fentanyl; pharmacokinetics, lung; pharmacokinetics, models

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The factors affecting the concentrations of fentanyl in the brain after intravenous administration have not been completely quantified. Methods. A model integrating the role of brain, lung and systemic kinetics was developed based on data from conscious instrumented sheep. Brain kinetics were inferred from arterio-sagittal sinus concentration gradients and cerebral blood flow, and lung kinetics from the pulmonary artery-aortic gradient and cardiac output. The best models of the lung and brain were incorporated into a recirculatory model of the whole-body disposition of fentanyl. The validity of the model structure was tested by its ability to describe published data on the effect of hypo-, normo- and hypercarbia on the blood and brain concentrations of fentanyl in anaesthetized dogs. Results. The cerebral kinetics of fentanyl were consistent with partial membrane limitation: the time to 50% equilibration with arterial blood was 10.0 min. Lung kinetics had two distinct components: a shallow compartment that was 50% equilibrated with blood in 0.72 min, and a loss term probably representing sequestration. Despite its simplicity, the recirculatory model was an adequate description of the sheep data. The dog data could be described if cerebral blood flow and cardiac output in the model were allowed to differ between hypo-, normo- and hypercarbic states. The required flow changes were in good agreement with the known effect of these states in the dog. Conclusions. A recirculatory model with the brain as a target organ defined the quantitative relationship between the brain concentrations of fentanyl and the circulatory state.

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