Biomedical subjects

J Sonner

Publications and source records attributed to J Sonner.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Both cerebral GABA(A) receptors and spinal GABA(A) receptors modulate the capacity of isoflurane to produce immobility.

We previously demonstrated that intrathecal administration of the noncompetitive gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA(A)) receptor antagonist picrotoxin increased isoflurane MAC (the minimum alveolar concentration of anesthetic producing immobility in 50% of animals) by a maximum (ceiling effect) of approximately 40%. We also found that IV administration of picrotoxin increased MAC by more than 60%, without evidence of a ceiling effect. The larger increase with IV administration suggested a role of cerebral GABA(A) receptors. Accordingly, in this study we examined the effect of intracerebroventricular administration of picrotoxin in rats, finding that picrotoxin infusion into the third ventricle increased isoflurane MAC by a maximum of approximately 40%, without finding a ceiling effect. In addition, we concurrently infused picrotoxin into the intrathecal and intracerebroventricular spaces, producing an increase in MAC in excess of 70%, also with no evidence of a ceiling effect. The dose-response relationship for the intrathecal-intraventricular infusion paralleled that of the IV infusion but was shifted to the left by an order of magnitude. We conclude that both cerebral and spinal GABA(A) receptors modulate the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility. Because other studies have shown that the spinal cord, and not the brain, mediates the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility, these results call into question the relevance of GABA(A) receptors to the immobilizing action of isoflurane.

Anesthetics, Inhalation↗

PubMed2001

Luciferase as a model for the site of inhaled anesthetic action.

UNLABELLED: The in vivo potencies of anesthetics correlate with their capacity to suppress the reaction of luciferin with luciferase. In addition, luciferin has structural resemblances to etomidate. These observations raise the issues of whether luciferin, itself, might affect anesthetic requirement, and whether luciferase resembles the site of anesthetic action. Because the polar luciferin is unlikely to cross the blood-brain barrier (we found that the olive oil/water partition coefficient was 100 +/- 36 x 10(-7)), we studied these issues in rats by measuring the effect of infusion of luciferin in artificial cerebrospinal fluid into the lumbar subarachnoidal space and into the cerebral intraventricular space on the MAC (the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration required to eliminate movement in response to a noxious stimulus in 50% of tested subjects) of isoflurane. MAC in rats given lumbar intrathecal doses of luciferin estimated to greatly exceed anesthetizing doses of etomidate, did not differ significantly from MAC in rats receiving only artificial cerebrospinal fluid into the lumbar intrathecal space. MAC slightly decreased when doses of luciferin estimated to greatly exceed anesthetizing doses of etomidate were infused intraventricularly (P < 0.05). In contrast to the absent or minimal effects of luciferin, intrathecal or intraventricular infusion of etomidate at similar or smaller doses significantly decreased isoflurane MAC. Luciferin did not affect +-aminobutyric acid type A or acetylcholine receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes. These results suggest that luciferin has minimal or no anesthetic effects. It also suggests that luciferin/luciferase may not provide a good surrogate for the site at which anesthetics act, if this site is on the surface of neuronal cells. IMPLICATIONS: In proportion to their potencies, anesthetics inhibit luciferin's action on luciferase, and luciferin structurally resembles the anesthetic etomidate. However, in contrast to etomidate, luciferin given intrathecally or into the third cerebral ventricle does not have anesthetic actions, and it does not affect +-aminobutyric acid or acetylcholine receptors in vitro. Luciferase may not provide a good surrogate for the site at which anesthetics act.

Anesthetics, Inhalation↗

PubMed1999

Nonimmobilizers and transitional compounds may produce convulsions by two mechanisms.

UNLABELLED: Some inhaled compounds cause convulsions. To better appreciate the physical basis for this property, we correlated the partial pressures that produced convulsions in rats with the lipophilicity (nonpolarity) and hydrophilicity (polarity) of 45 compounds: 3 n-alkanes, 18 n-haloalkanes, 3 halogenated aromatic compounds, 3 cycloalkanes and 3 halocycloalkanes, 13 halogenated ethers, and 2 noble gases (He and Ne). In most cases, convulsions were quantified by averaging the alveolar partial pressures just below the pressures that caused and slightly higher pressures that did cause clonic convulsions (ED50). The ED50 did not correlate with hydrophilicity (the saline/gas partition coefficient), nor was there an obvious correlation with molecular structure. For 80% of compounds (36 of 45), the ED50 correlated closely (r2 = 0.99) with lipophilicity (the olive oil/gas partition coefficient). Perhaps because they block the effect of GABA on GABA(A) receptors, five compounds were more potent than would be predicted from their lipophilicity. Conversely, four compounds may have been less potent than would be predicted because they (like conventional inhaled anesthetics) enhance the effect of GABA on GABA(A) receptors. IMPLICATIONS: Nonimmobilizers and transitional compounds may produce convulsions by two mechanisms. One correlates with lipophilicity (nonpolarity), and the other correlates with an action on GABA(A) receptors.

Alkanes↗

PubMed1999

Blockade of glutamate receptors and barbiturate anesthesia: increased sensitivity to pentobarbital-induced anesthesia despite reduced inhibition of AMPA receptors in GluR2 null mutant mice.

BACKGROUND: Barbiturates enhance gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA(A)) receptor function and also inhibit the alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) subtype of glutamate receptor. The relative contribution of these actions to the behavioral properties of barbiturates is not certain. Because AMPA receptor complexes that lack the GluR2 subunit are relatively insensitive to pentobarbital inhibition, GluR2 null mutant mice provide a novel tool to investigate the importance of AMPA receptor inhibition to the anesthetic effects of barbiturates. METHODS: GluR2 null allele (-/-), heterozygous (+/-), and wild-type (+/+) mice were injected with pentobarbital (30 and 35 mg/kg intraperitoneally). Sensitivity to anesthetics was assessed by measuring the latency to loss of righting reflex, sleep time, and the loss of corneal, pineal, and toe-pinch withdrawal reflexes. In addition, patch-clamp recordings of acutely dissociated CA1 hippocampal pyramidal neurons from (-/-) and (+/+) mice were undertaken to investigate the effects of barbiturates on kainate-activated AMPA receptors and GABA-activated GABA(A) receptors. RESULTS: Behavioral tests indicate that sensitivity to pentobarbital was increased in (-/-) mice. In contrast, AMPA receptors from (-/-) neurons were less sensitive to inhibition by pentobarbital (concentrations that produced 50% of the maximal inhibition [IC50], 301 vs. 51 microM), thiopental (IC50, 153 vs. 34 microM), and phenobarbital (IC50, 930 vs. 205 microM) compared with wild-type controls, respectively. In addition, the potency of kainate was greater in (-/-) neurons, whereas no differences were observed for the potentiation of GABA(A) receptors by pentobarbital. CONCLUSIONS: The GluR2 null mutant mice were more sensitive to pentobarbital anesthesia despite a reduced sensitivity of GluR2-deficient AMPA receptors to barbiturate blockade. Our results indicate that the inhibition of AMPA receptors does not correlate with the anesthetic effects of barbiturates in this animal model. We postulate that the increase in the sensitivity to anesthetics results from a global suppression of excitatory neurotransmission in GluR2-deficient mice.

Alleles↗

PubMed1998

Desflurane and nitrous oxide, but not nonimmobilizers, affect nociceptive responses.

UNLABELLED: Nonimmobilizers (previously called nonanesthetics) do not prevent movement in response to a noxious stimulus, even at doses predicted to produce anesthesia. We hypothesized they would also lack antinociceptive effects. We tested this prediction using the tail-flick latency (TFL) test. As predicted, the two nonimmobilizers tested (1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane and perfluoropentane) did not alter TFL, whereas desflurane and nitrous oxide both lengthened TFL (nitrous oxide at a lower minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration [MAC]-multiple than desflurane). In addition, we found that 0.1 MAC desflurane had a hyperalgesic effect (shortened TFL). IMPLICATIONS: We studied the response of animals inhaling anesthetics or nonimmobilizers (compounds predicted to be anesthetics from the Meyer-Overton relation) to painful stimuli. Nonimmobilizers had no effect on these responses; at a low partial pressure, desflurane was hyperalgesic; nitrous oxide and, at higher partial pressures, desflurane were antinociceptive.

Animals↗

PubMed1997

Nephrotoxicity of sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia in volunteers.

Present package labeling for sevoflurane recommends the use of fresh gas flow rates of 2 L/min or more when delivering anesthesia with sevoflurane. This recommendation resulted from a concern about the potential nephrotoxicity of a degradation product of sevoflurane, "Compound A," produced by the action of carbon dioxide absorbents on sevoflurane. To assess the adequacy of this recommendation, we compared the nephrotoxicity of 8 h of 1.25 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) sevoflurane (n = 10) versus desflurane (n = 9) in fluid-restricted (i.e., nothing by mouth overnight) volunteers when the anesthetic was given in a standard circle absorber anesthetic system at 2 L/min. Subjects were tested for markers of renal injury (urinary albumin, glucose, alpha-glutathione-S-transferase [GST], and pi-GST; and serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen [BUN]) before and 1, 2, 3, and/or 5-7 days after anesthesia. Desflurane did not produce renal injury. Rebreathing of sevoflurane produced average inspired concentrations of Compound A of 41 +/- 3 ppm (mean +/- SD). Sevoflurane was associated with transient injury to: 1) the glomerulus, as revealed by postanesthetic albuminuria; 2) the proximal tubule, as revealed by postanesthetic glucosuria and increased urinary alpha-GST; and 3) the distal tubule, as revealed by postanesthetic increased urinary pi-GST. These effects varied greatly (e.g., on postanesthesia Day 3, the 24-h albumin excretion was < 0.03 g (normal) for one volunteer; 0.03-1 g for five others; 1-2 g for two others; 2.1 g for one volunteer; and 4.4 g for another volunteer). Neither anesthetic affected serum creatinine or BUN, nor changed the ability of the kidney to concentrate urine in response to vasopressin, 5 U/70 kg subcutaneously (i.e., these measures failed to reveal the injury produced). In addition, sevoflurane, but not desflurane, caused small postanesthetic increases in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), suggesting mild, transient hepatic injury.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Convulsant activity of nonanesthetic gas combinations.

Most nonanesthetics (inhaled compounds that neither cause anesthesia when given alone nor decrease the partial pressure of a known inhaled anesthetic required to produce anesthesia) and transitional compounds (inhaled compounds that are less potent than would be predicted by the Meyer-Overton hypothesis) cause convulsions. A possible exception is the perfluoroalkane series of nonanesthetics. The present study tested whether perfluoroalkanes do provide an exception. Further, we tested whether the convulsant effects of nonanesthetic and transitional compounds were additive. The nonanesthetic perfluoropropane caused convulsions at 7.5 +/- 0.7 atm (mean +/- SD). Convulsions also were produced by perfluorocyclobutane (0.976 +/- 0.002 atm), 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane (0.358 +/- 0.011 atm), 2,3-dichlorooctafluorobutane (0.085 +/- 0.007 atm), 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane (0.055 +/- 0.007 atm), and flurothyl (0.00156 +/- 0.00039 atm). Of these, 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane is a transitional compound, the remainder being nonanesthetics. The combination of flurothyl plus 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane gave evidence of antagonism (a 17% +/- 21% deviation from additivity; P < 0.05), whereas the combination of 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane plus 2,3-dichlorooctafluorobutane gave evidence of synergy (a -13% +/- 8% deviation from additivity; P < 0.05). The combinations of perfluoropropane plus perfluorocyclobutane (-4% +/- 15%), and perfluoropropane plus 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane (-1% +/- 26%) did not produce results that deviated significantly from additivity. We conclude that pairs of these compounds either produce convulsions in an additive manner, a finding consistent with (but not proving) a common mode of action; or deviate modestly from additivity, a finding suggesting that at least a portion of the mechanistic basis for convulsions might differ, particularly for flurothyl plus other nonanesthetics, or for the combination of non-anesthetics and transitional compounds.

Animals↗

PubMed1997

Anesthetic potencies of n-alkanols: results of additivity and solubility studies suggest a mechanism of action similar to that for conventional inhaled anesthetics.

The mechanism by which n-alkanols produce anesthesia and the characteristics relevant to those mechanisms (e.g., lipid solubilities versus potencies) remain unknown. Accordingly, we determined potencies (minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration [MAC]) and solubilities of normal methanol, ethanol, butanol, hexanol, and octanol. We also determined the additivity of these alkanols with a conventional anesthetic (desflurane) and the additivity of methanol with butanol. Finally, we determined whether alkanol metabolism influences alkanol potencies. MAC for methanol, ethanol, butanol, hexanol, and octanol (0.00200, 0.000989, 0.000133, 0.0000214, and 0.00000117 atm, respectively) increased with an increasing solubility in olive oil (olive oil/gas partition coefficients 48.6, 108, 1,650, 11,600, and 93,500, respectively) and octanol (octanol/gas partition coefficients 163, 1,150, 22,900, 135,000, and 4,140,000) to give a product of MAC x solubility for olive oil approximately 10 times less (values of 0.10-0.25) than that expected from the Meyer-Overton hypothesis (compared with conventional inhaled anesthetics). There was less deviation for octanol, but the results were more variable. Inhibition of methanol and butanol metabolism by 4-methylpyrazole did not alter MAC. Methanol, ethanol, butanol, hexanol, and octanol had approximately additive anesthetic effects with desflurane, with some small but statistically significant deviations both above and below additivity. In the presence of 0.5 MAC of desflurane, we needed to add 0.4-0.6 MAC of each alkanol to inhibit the movement of 50% of the rats in response to noxious stimulation. Similarly, the effects of methanol and butanol were additive (with each other). The saline/gas partition coefficient for each alkanol was high (3700, 2650, 1400, 900, and 709 for methanol through octanol), which indicates high polarity. We conclude that the potent anesthetic effects of normal alkanols may result from an affinity to both polar and nonpolar phases. Our finding of additivity of alkanols with each other is consistent with a common mechanism of action. Similarly, the finding of additivity or slight deviations from additivity for alkanols with desflurane is consistent with mechanisms of action that have much in common.

Alcohols↗

PubMed1997

Effects of inhaled nonimmobilizer, proconvulsant compounds on desflurane minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration in rats.

UNLABELLED: Anesthetics depress the central nervous system, whereas nonimmobilizers (previously called nonanesthetics) and transitional compounds having the same physical properties (e.g., solubility in lipid) do not produce anesthesia (nonimmobilizers) or are less potent anesthetics than might be predicted from their lipophilicity (transitional compounds). Potential explanations for the absent or decreased anesthetic effect of nonimmobilizer and transitional compounds include the theories that the nonimmobilizers are devoid of anesthetic effect and that transitional compounds have a decreased capacity to produce anesthesia; that the effects of these compounds are not apparent because the concentrations examined are too low; or that anesthesia, or lack thereof, results from a balance between depression and excitation (all nonimmobilizer and transitional compounds produce convulsions). To examine these issues further, we tested the effect of various multiples of the convulsive 50% effective dose (ED50) of three nonimmobilizers and one transitional compound on the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of desflurane in rats. The nonimmobilizer 2,3-dichlorooctafluorobutane (NI-1), from 0.7 to 1.1 times its convulsive ED50, increased the MAC of desflurane by 14%-27%, but at 1.6 times its convulsive ED50 caused no change in MAC; the nonimmobilizer 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane (NI-2) did not change MAC at concentrations up to its convulsant ED50, but it increased MAC by 25% and 36% at 1.3 and 1.7 times its convulsant ED50, respectively. The nonimmobilizer flurothyl (NI-3) decreased the MAC of desflurane by 20% +/- 6% (mean +/- SD) at 0.5 times its convulsant ED50, but it caused no change at higher partial pressures (up to 7.8 times its convulsant ED50), and the transitional compound CF3CCl2-O-CF2Cl (T-1) significantly decreased MAC by 16% +/- 7% at 0.8 times its convulsant ED50, but the 6%-8% decreases in MAC at 0.4 and 1.6 times its convulsant ED50 were not significant. Thus, neither nonimmobilizer nor transitional compounds produced a consistent dose-related effect on the MAC of desflurane, and any changes were small. These results suggest that the excitation produced by transitional compounds or nonimmobilizers does not explain their limited ability or inability to produce anesthesia. The data are consistent with a decreased anesthetic efficacy of transitional compounds and the lack of efficacy of nonimmobilizers. IMPLICATIONS: Inhaled compounds that do not cause anesthesia (nonimmobilizers) are used to test theories of anesthetic action. Their use presumes that a trivial explanation, such as cancelling stimulatory and depressant effects, does not explain the absence of anesthesia. The present results argue against such an explanation.

Anesthetics↗

PubMed1997

Recovery and kinetic characteristics of desflurane and sevoflurane in volunteers after 8-h exposure, including kinetics of degradation products.

BACKGROUND: Desflurane and sevoflurane permit speedier changes in anesthetic partial pressures than do older halogenated anesthetics. The authors determined the kinetic characteristics of desflurane and sevoflurane and those of compound A [CH2F-O-C(=CF2)(CF3)], a nephrotoxic degradation product of sevoflurane. METHODS: Volunteers received 1.25 minimum alveolar concentration of desflurane or sevoflurane, each administered for 8 h in a fresh gas inflow of 2 l/min. Inspired (F(I)) and end-tidal (F(A)) concentrations of anesthetic and compound A were measured during administration, and F(A) relative to F(A0) (the last end-tidal concentration during administration) during elimination. The indices of recovery were also measured. RESULTS: The ratio F(I)/F(A) rapidly approached 1.0, with values greater for sevoflurane (desflurane 1.06 +/- 0.01 vs. sevoflurane 1.11 +/- 0.02, mean +/- SD). The ratio F(A)/F(I) for compound A was approximately 0.8. The F(A)/F(A0) ratio decreased slightly more rapidly with desflurane than with sevoflurane, and objective measures indicated faster recovery with desflurane: The initial response to command (14 +/- 4 min vs. 28 +/- 8 min [means +/- SD]) and orientation (19 +/- 4 vs. 33 +/- 9 min) was quicker, and recovery was faster as defined by results of the Digit Symbol Substitution, P-deletion, and Trieger tests. Desflurane produced less vomiting (1 [0.5, 3]; median [quartiles] episodes) than did sevoflurane (5 [2.5, 7.5] episodes). The F(A)/F(A0) ratio for compound A decreased within 5 min to a constant value of 0.1. CONCLUSIONS: These anesthetics have kinetics consistent with their solubilities. Sevoflurane's greater biodegradation probably increases F(I)/F(A) differences during anesthetic administration and decreases F(A)/F(A0) differences during elimination. The F(A) for compound A differs from F(I) by 20% (F(A)/F(I) = 0.8) because of substantial degradation. Recovery from anesthesia proceeds nearly twice as fast with desflurane than with sevoflurane. Differences in ventilation, or alveolar or tissue elimination, do not completely explain the slower recovery with sevoflurane.

Anesthetics, Inhalation↗

PubMed1996

Transient radicular pain following spinal anesthesia: review of the literature and report of a case involving 2% lidocaine.

Recent reports of transient radicular irritation following intrathecal administration of 5% lidocaine in 7.5% dextrose, a common drug choice in many obstetric centers, have generated concern that its use for single injection spinal anesthesia can result in transient neurologic toxicity. Accordingly, many have advocated dilution of this anesthetic solution prior to subarachnoid administration. The present report describes a case in which transient neurologic symptoms occurred following intrathecal injection of a solution containing approximately 2% lidocaine. The similarity of the present case to those previously reported implies a common etiology and suggests that risk is not restricted to the use of 5% lidocaine with 7.5% glucose. It underscores the need for carefully controlled prospective evaluation of the factors that affect transient neurologic dysfunction following spinal anesthesia.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1996

Nonanesthetics can suppress learning.

Nonanesthetic gases or vapors do not abolish movement in response to noxious stimuli despite partial pressures and affinities for lipids that would, according to the Meyer-Overton hypothesis, predict such abolition. We investigated whether nonanesthetics depress learning and memory (i.e., provide amnesia). To define learning, we used a "fear-potentiated startle paradigm": rats trained to associate light with a noxious stimulus (footshock) will startle more, as measured by an accelerometer, when a startle-eliciting stimulus (e.g., a noise) is paired with light than when the startle-eliciting stimulus is presented alone. We imposed light-shock pairings on 98 rats under three conditions: no anesthesia (control); 0.20, 0.29, and 0.38 times the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of desflurane; or two nonanesthetics (1,2-dichloroperfluorocyclobutane and perfluoropentane) at partial pressures predicted from their lipid solubilities to be between 0.2 and 1 MAC. Desflurane produced a dose-related depression of learning with abolition of learning at 0.28 MAC. Perfluoropentane at 0.2-predicted MAC had the same effect as 0.28 MAC desflurane. 1,2-Dichloroperfluorocyclobutane at 0.5- to 1-predicted MAC abolished learning. Because nonanesthetics suppress learning but not movement (the two critical components of anesthesia), they may prove useful in discriminating between mechanisms and sites of action of anesthetics.

Anesthetics, Inhalation↗

PubMed1996

Anesthetic and convulsant properties of aromatic compounds and cycloalkanes: implications for mechanisms of narcosis.

We examined the anesthetic and convulsant properties of 16 unfluorinated to completely fluorinated aromatic compounds, having six to nine carbon atoms (e.g., benzene to 1,3,5-tris(trifluoromethyl)benzene), and four cycloalkanes (cyclopentane to cyclooctane). Benzene, fluorobenzene, toluene, p-xylene, ethylbenzene, and cyclopentane caused excitation (twitching, jerking, and hyperactivity), and three aromatic compounds (perfluorotoluene, p-difluorotoluene and 1,3,5-tris(trifluoromethyl)benzene) and three cycloalkanes (cyclohexane, cycloheptane, and cyclooctane) produced convulsions. Cyclooctane and 1,3,5-tris(trifluoromethyl)benzene were nonanesthetics. Except for nonanesthetics and perfluorotoluene (too toxic to test for anesthetic potency), all compounds produced anesthesia or decreased the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of desflurane. Aromatic compounds were more potent and lipid-soluble than n-alkanes (data from previous report) and cycloalkanes. All three series increasingly disobeyed the Meyer-Overton hypothesis as molecular size increased. For a particular number of carbons (e.g., cyclohexane, n-hexane, and benzene), the deviation was cycloalkanes > or = normal alkanes > aromatic compounds. These results suggest that molecular shape (including "bulkiness") and size provide limited clues to the structure of the anesthetic site of action.

Anesthesia, Inhalation↗