The complexity of recovery from anesthesia.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Anesthesia↗
Biomedical subjects
Steven Shafer
Publications and source records attributed to Steven Shafer.
Pharmacogenomics and drug development.
It is generally anticipated that pharmacogenomic information will have a large impact on drug development and will facilitate individualized drug treatment. However, there has been relatively little quantitative modeling to assess how pharmacogenomic information could be best utilized in clinical practice. Using a quantitative model, this review demonstrates that efficacy is increased and toxicity is reduced when a genetically-guided dose adjustment strategy is utilized in a clinical trial. However, there is limited information available regarding the genetic variables affecting the disposition or mechanism of action of most commonly used medications. These genetic factors must be identified to enable pharmacogenomic testing to be routinely used in the clinic. A recently described murine haplotype-based computational genetic analysis method provides one strategy for identifying genetic factors regulating the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of commonly used medications.
Animals↗
Isoflurane antagonizes the capacity of flurothyl or 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane to impair fear conditioning to context and tone.
UNLABELLED: In animals, the conventional inhaled anesthetic, isoflurane, impairs learning fear to context and fear to tone, doing so at concentrations that produce amnesia in humans. Nonimmobilizers are inhaled compounds that do not produce immobility in response to noxious stimulation, nor do they decrease the requirement for conventional inhaled anesthetics. Like isoflurane, the nonimmobilizer 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane (2N) impairs learning at concentrations less than those predicted from its lipophilicity to produce anesthesia. The capacity of the nonimmobilizer di-(2,2,2,-trifluoroethyl) ether (flurothyl) to affect learning and memory has not been studied. Both nonimmobilizers can cause convulsions. We hypothesized that if isoflurane, 2N, and flurothyl act by the same mechanism to impair learning and memory, their effects should be additive. We found that isoflurane, 2N, and flurothyl (each, alone) impaired learning fear to context and fear to tone in rats, with the nonimmobilizers doing so at concentrations less than those that cause convulsions. (Fear was defined by freezing [volitional immobility] in the presence of the conditioned stimulus [context or tone].) However, the combination of isoflurane and 2N or flurothyl produced an antagonistic rather than an additive effect on learning, a finding in conflict with our hypothesis. And flurothyl was no less potent than 2N (at least no less potent relative to the concentration of each that produced convulsions) in its capacity to impair learning. We conclude that conventional inhaled anesthetics and nonimmobilizers impair learning and memory by different mechanisms. The basis for this impairment remains unknown. IMPLICATIONS: Conventional inhaled anesthetics and nonimmobilizers are antagonistic in their effects on learning and memory, and this finding suggests that they impair learning and memory, at least in part, by different mechanisms.
Acoustic Stimulation↗
Pharmacokinetic study of FFP photochemically treated with amotosalen (S-59) and UV light compared to FFP in healthy volunteers anticoagulated with warfarin.
BACKGROUND: To date, no clinical trials have characterized FFP infusion efficacy, and infusion still carries infectious risk. This single-blinded crossover study compared postinfusion kinetics of FVII in photochemically treated FFP to standard FFP. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects donated plasma by apheresis. Half of the collected plasma was treated with the psoralen amotosalen hydrochloride (S-59) and UVA light, and half were prepared as standard plasma. Subjects received warfarin over 4 days to lower FVII levels. On Day 4, subjects received 1 L of either treated or standard FFP. After 2 weeks, subjects underwent a regimen identical to that with the other type of FFP. RESULTS: After warfarin ingestion, the mean FVII concentration was 0.33 IU per mL. Both types of FFP exhibited comparable FVII kinetics, with a mean peak increment of 0.10 to 0.12 IU per mL occurring at the end of infusion. The effect disappeared after 8 hours. DISCUSSION: Study data of warfarin-treated healthy volunteers demonstrate that psoralen plus UV-treated FFP provides an equivalent in vivo coagulation response to control plasma. A 1-L dose of FFP in adults may provide an initial increment of 0.10 IU per mL of FVII. In the absence of bleeding, FVII levels return to baseline after 8 hours.
Adult↗
Non-steady state analysis of the pharmacokinetic interaction between propofol and remifentanil.
BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics of both propofol and remifentanil have been described extensively. Although they are commonly administered together for clinical anesthesia, their pharmacokinetic interaction has not been investigated so far. The purpose of the current investigation was to elucidate the nature and extent of pharmacokinetic interactions between propofol and remifentanil. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers aged 20-43 yr initially received either propofol or remifentanil alone in a stepwise incremental and decremental fashion a target controlled infusion. Thereafter, the respective second drug was infused to a fixed target concentration in the clinical range (0-4 microg/ml and 0-4 ng/ml for propofol and remifentanil, respectively) and the stepwise incremental pattern repeated. Frequent blood samples were drawn for up to 6 h for propofol and 40 min for remifentanil after the end of administration and assayed for the respective drug concentrations with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The time courses of the measured concentrations were fitted to standard compartmental models. Calculations were performed with NONMEM. After having established the individual population models for both drugs and an exploratory analysis for hypothesis generation, pharmacokinetic interaction was identified by including an interaction term into the population model and comparing the value of the objective function in the presence and absence of the respective term. RESULTS: The concentration-time courses of propofol and remifentanil were described best by a three- and two-compartment model, respectively. In the concentration range examined, remifentanil does not alter propofol pharmacokinetics. Coadministration of propofol decreases the central volume of distribution and distributional clearance of remifentanil by 41% and elimination clearance by 15%. This effect was not concentration-dependent in the examined concentration range of propofol. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of propofol decreases the bolus dose of remifentanil needed to achieve a certain plasma-effect compartment concentration but does not alter the respective maintenance infusion rates and recovery times to a clinically significant degree.
Adult↗