Cargando…

The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia

Background. Propofol is a popular intravenous anesthetic and varieties of formulations were produced from different laboratories. The present study compared efficacy of propofol of different laboratories and different concentrations (1 and 2%) during induction of anesthesia. Methods. Seventy-five sc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Obata, Yukako, Adachi, Yushi U., Suzuki, Katsumi, Itagaki, Taiga, Kato, Hiromi, Satomoto, Maiko, Nakajima, Yoshiki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4745982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26904114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9178523
_version_ 1782414753820311552
author Obata, Yukako
Adachi, Yushi U.
Suzuki, Katsumi
Itagaki, Taiga
Kato, Hiromi
Satomoto, Maiko
Nakajima, Yoshiki
author_facet Obata, Yukako
Adachi, Yushi U.
Suzuki, Katsumi
Itagaki, Taiga
Kato, Hiromi
Satomoto, Maiko
Nakajima, Yoshiki
author_sort Obata, Yukako
collection PubMed
description Background. Propofol is a popular intravenous anesthetic and varieties of formulations were produced from different laboratories. The present study compared efficacy of propofol of different laboratories and different concentrations (1 and 2%) during induction of anesthesia. Methods. Seventy-five scheduled surgical patients were randomly allocated into three groups. The patients of group D1 received AstraZeneca Diprivan 1% (Osaka, Japan) at a rate of 40 mg kg(−1) h(−1). Group M1 was given 1% Maruishi (Maruishi Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan) and group M2 was given 2% formulation at the same rate of propofol. Achieving hypnosis was defined as failure to open their eyes in response to a verbal command and the venous blood sample was withdrawn. Results. The hypnotic doses of M2 were significantly larger (D1: 91.4 ± 30.9, M1: 90.7 ± 26.7, and M2: 118.4 ± 40.2 mg, resp. (mean ± SD). p < 0.005). Age and gender were selected as statistically significant covariates using general linear model-ANOVA. The blood concentration showed no significant difference among the groups (3.73 ± 2.34, 4.10 ± 3.04, and 4.70 ± 2.12 μg mL(−1), resp.). Conclusion. The required dose of propofol was different among the formulations; however, the serum concentration showed no significant difference. This trial is registered with UMIN Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000019925.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4745982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47459822016-02-22 The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia Obata, Yukako Adachi, Yushi U. Suzuki, Katsumi Itagaki, Taiga Kato, Hiromi Satomoto, Maiko Nakajima, Yoshiki Anesthesiol Res Pract Clinical Study Background. Propofol is a popular intravenous anesthetic and varieties of formulations were produced from different laboratories. The present study compared efficacy of propofol of different laboratories and different concentrations (1 and 2%) during induction of anesthesia. Methods. Seventy-five scheduled surgical patients were randomly allocated into three groups. The patients of group D1 received AstraZeneca Diprivan 1% (Osaka, Japan) at a rate of 40 mg kg(−1) h(−1). Group M1 was given 1% Maruishi (Maruishi Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan) and group M2 was given 2% formulation at the same rate of propofol. Achieving hypnosis was defined as failure to open their eyes in response to a verbal command and the venous blood sample was withdrawn. Results. The hypnotic doses of M2 were significantly larger (D1: 91.4 ± 30.9, M1: 90.7 ± 26.7, and M2: 118.4 ± 40.2 mg, resp. (mean ± SD). p < 0.005). Age and gender were selected as statistically significant covariates using general linear model-ANOVA. The blood concentration showed no significant difference among the groups (3.73 ± 2.34, 4.10 ± 3.04, and 4.70 ± 2.12 μg mL(−1), resp.). Conclusion. The required dose of propofol was different among the formulations; however, the serum concentration showed no significant difference. This trial is registered with UMIN Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000019925. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4745982/ /pubmed/26904114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9178523 Text en Copyright © 2016 Yukako Obata et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Obata, Yukako
Adachi, Yushi U.
Suzuki, Katsumi
Itagaki, Taiga
Kato, Hiromi
Satomoto, Maiko
Nakajima, Yoshiki
The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title_full The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title_fullStr The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title_short The Influence of Differences in Solvents and Concentration on the Efficacy of Propofol at Induction of Anesthesia
title_sort influence of differences in solvents and concentration on the efficacy of propofol at induction of anesthesia
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4745982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26904114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9178523
work_keys_str_mv AT obatayukako theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT adachiyushiu theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT suzukikatsumi theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT itagakitaiga theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT katohiromi theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT satomotomaiko theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT nakajimayoshiki theinfluenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT obatayukako influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT adachiyushiu influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT suzukikatsumi influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT itagakitaiga influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT katohiromi influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT satomotomaiko influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia
AT nakajimayoshiki influenceofdifferencesinsolventsandconcentrationontheefficacyofpropofolatinductionofanesthesia