PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9949776

Pharmacological activation.

Abstract

Despite the disparate results in clinical studies a few conclusions can be made. Pharmacologic activation during ECoG serves a minor role in determining the limits of a cortical excision during surgical treatment for intractable partial epilepsy. The extensive preoperative evaluation including long-term EEG monitoring to assess the electroclinical correlation and MRI are of primary importance. There is sufficient information at some epilepsy centers demonstrating a putative beneficial effect of ECoG that its continued use can be justified. Pharmacologic activation of epileptiform discharges is never preferred to spontaneous alterations occurring in the pre-excision ECoG. It would seem reasonable to consider pharmacologic activation at the time of the pre-excision ECoG if no discharges are present. Further studies will be needed to decide on the 'drug of choice', but for now methohexital would be most reasonable given the enormous amount of information regarding its induction properties. One must keep in mind the clear limitations associated with the use of these drugs especially the possibility of 'misleading' informations as documented by Fiol et al. (1990). The use of post-excision ECoG in general is sufficiently dubious that the practice of pharmacologic activation during this recording cannot be recommended. Perhaps the most reasonable view of pharmacologic activation is the position articulated by our Dr. Norman So (1995): 'There are many who advocate the injection of a short-acting barbiturate like methohexital to activate spiking during ECoG, but given the difficulty already encountered in interpreting the spontaneous ECoG it seems foolhardy to complicate the picture with potentially non-specific drug effects'.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G D Cascino. 1998. Pharmacological activation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9949776/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil in children.

AIM: Propofol has a high incidence of pain on injection, particularly when a vein on the back of hand is used. Administration of lidocaine, either before or mixed with propofol remains the most widely used method to attenuate this pain. The use of opioids such as alfentanil and fentanyl has been found to decrease pain induced by propofol injection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different doses of remifentanil and alfentanil in minimizing the pain caused by propofol. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy premedicated children between the age group of 5-12 years admitted for adenotonsillectomy were randomly allocated to one of 6 treatment groups. Group I: remifentanil 0.25 microg kg(-1); Group II: remifentanil 0.50 microg kg(-1); Group III: alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1); Group IV: alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) 60 s prior to propofol mixed with 1 mL of 0.9% normal saline; Group V: lidocaine 1 mL of 1% (10 mg) added to 100 mg of propofol and Group VI: normal saline. During the injection of propofol (3 mg kg(-1)) pain perception was assessed with a four-point behavioural scale: none, mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: There were 52 subjects in Group I, 51 in Group II, 49 in Group III, 52 in Group IV, 52 in Group V and 52 in Group VI; 63.46% of patients in Group I, 39.21% in Group II, 38.77% in Group III, 36.53% in Group IV, 38.46% in Group V and 84.61% in Group VI experienced pain. Statistically, Groups II, III, IV and V were significantly better than placebo in the reduction of propofol pain (P<0.0001). Groups II, III and IV significantly reduced the pain in comparison with Group I (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with intravenous remifentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1), alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1) and 20 microg kg(-1) were equally effective in reducing pain associated with propofol injection in children between the age group of 5-12 years.

Alfentanil↗

Alfentanil attenuates phenylephrine-induced contraction in rat aorta.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Alfentanil was reported to relax the rat aorta by direct action on the vascular smooth muscle. The aims of this in vitro study were to examine the effect of alfentanil on phenylephrine-induced contractions in the rat aorta and to determine the cellular mechanism associated with this process. METHODS: Endothelium-denuded aortic rings were suspended in order to record isometric tension. In the rings with or without 10(-6) mol naloxone or 10(-5) mol verapamil, the concentration-response curves for phenylephrine and potassium chloride were generated in the presence or absence of alfentanil (10(-6), 5 x 10(-5), 10(-4) mol). In the rings exposed to a calcium-free isotonic depolarizing solution, the contractile response induced by the addition of calcium was assessed in the presence or absence of alfentanil (5 x 10(-5), 10(-4) mol). RESULTS: Alfentanil (5 x 10(-5), 10(-4) mol) attenuated (P < 0.05) the phenylephrine-induced contraction in the ring with or without 10(-6) mol naloxone but had no effect on the phenylephrine-induced contraction in the rings pretreated with verapamil. Alfentanil (5 x 10(-5), 10(-4) mol) produced a significant rightward shift (P < 0.01) in the potassium chloride dose-response curve, and attenuated the contractile response (P < 0.001) induced by calcium in the calcium-free isotonic depolarizing solution in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: A supraclinical dose of alfentanil attenuates the phenylephrine-induced contraction via an inhibitory effect on calcium influx by blocking the l-type calcium channels in the rat aortic vascular smooth muscle.

Alfentanil↗