4.7 Article

Bidirectional modulation of isoflurane potency by intrathecal tetrodotoxin and veratridine in rats

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 159, 期 4, 页码 872-878

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00583.x

关键词

inhaled anaesthetics; isoflurane; MAC; mechanisms of anaesthetic action; sodium channels; tetrodotoxin; veratridine

资金

  1. NIH [1P01GM47818, GM58055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Results from several studies point to voltage-gated Na+ channels as potential mediators of the immobility produced by inhaled anaesthetics. We hypothesized that the intrathecal administration of tetrodotoxin, a drug that blocks Na+ channels, should enhance anaesthetic potency, and that concurrent administration of veratridine, a drug that augments Na+ channel opening, should reverse the increase in potency. Experimental approach: We measured the change in isoflurane potency for reducing movement in response to a painful stimulus as defined by MAC (minimum alveolar concentration of anaesthetic required to abolish movement in 50% of subjects) caused by intrathecal infusion of various concentrations of tetrodotoxin into the lumbothoracic subarachnoid space of rats, and the change in MAC caused by the administration of a fixed dose of tetrodotoxin plus various doses of intrathecal veratridine. Key results: Intrathecal infusion of tetrodotoxin (0.078-0.63 mu M) produced a reversible dose-related decrease in MAC, of more than 50% at the highest concentration. Intrathecal co-administration of veratridine (1.6-6.4 mu M) reversed this decrease in a dose-related manner, with nearly complete reversal at the highest veratridine dose tested. Conclusions and implications: Intrathecal administration of tetrodotoxin increases isoflurane potency (decreases isoflurane MAC), and intrathecal administration of veratridine counteracts this effect in vivo. These findings are consistent with a role for voltage-gated Na+ channel blockade in the immobility produced by inhaled anaesthetics.

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

4.7
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