Dose Response Curves of Plasma Concentration 50 of Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion for Supraglottic Airway Devices: A Randomized Controlled Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31584/jhsmr.2023935Keywords:
effect-site concentration, target controlled infusion of propofol, ProSealTM, Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM, I-gelTM, SupremeTMAbstract
Objective: We aimed to determine the plasma concentration 50 (CP50) of propofol target controlled infusion (TCI) for successful insertion of four types of supraglottic airway devices (SGD).
Material and Methods: This prospective parallel randomized controlled, double blinded, superiority trial was conducted in June 2012 following approval by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. Effect-site concentrations (Ce) of propofol TCI were determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method. After equilibration was established between the plasma and effect-site concentrations, a SupremeTM, ProSealTM (control groups), I-gelTM or Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM devices were inserted. The CP50 was determined by dose response logistic curves presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The General Estimating Equation was used to determine factors associated with hemodynamic changes.
Results: The Ces of TCI propofol requirements in the SupremeTM, ProSealTM, I-gelTM and Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM groups were 5.8, 4.8, 5.6, and 5.8 µg/ml, respectively (effect size [95% CI]: 0.22 [0.06, 0.51], p-value 0.036). The CP50 [95% CIs] in the SupremeTM, ProSealTM, I-gelTM and Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM groups were 5.8 [-0.01, 11.6], 4.9 [3.3, 6.5], 5.7 [5.0, 6.3] and 5.5 [4.7, 6.4] µg/ml, respectively. Heart rates and systolic blood pressure were significantly higher in the Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM group than in the ProSealTM (p-value<0.01) and I-gelTM groups (p-value<0.01).
Conclusion: The ProSealTM and I-gelTM are preferred over the SupremeTM and Laryngeal Tube Suction IITM devices due to the lower CP50 and hemodynamic changes.
References
Hernandez MR, Klock PA Jr, Ovassapian A. Evolution of the extraglottic airway: a review of its history, applications, and practical tips for success. Anesth Analg 2012;114:349-68.
Sintavanuruk K, Pongruekdee S, Thaharavanich R, Laosuwan S, Charuluxananan S. Comparative study of effective-site target controlled infusion with standard bolus induction of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Asian Biomed 2010;4:177-82.
Schwilden H. A general method for calculating the dosage scheme in linear Pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1981;20:379-86.
Shafer SL, Gregg KM. Algorithms to rapidly achieve and maintain stable drug concentrations at the site of drug effect with a computer-controlled infusion pump. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992;20:147-69.
Kodaka M, Handa F, Kawasaki J, Miyao H. Cp50 of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion using predicted concentrations with and without nitrous oxide. Anaesthesia 2002;57:956-9.
Kodaka M, Okamoto Y, Koyama K, Miyao H. Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask Classic and ProSeal. Br J Anaesth 2004;92:242-5.
Richebé P, Rivalan B, Baudouin L, Sesay M, Sztark F, Cros A-M, et al. Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005;22:858-63.
Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 2009;64:79-83.
Dixon W. The up-and-down method for small samples. J Am Stat Assoc 1965;60:967-78.
Dutt A, Joad A, Sharma M. Induction for classic laryngeal mask airway insertion: does low-dose fentanyl work. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2012;28:210-3.
Handa-Tsutsui F, Kodaka M. Propofol concentration requirement for laryngeal mask airway insertion was highest with the ProSeal, next highest with the Fastrach, and lowest with the Classic type, with target-controlled infusion. J Clin Anesth 2005;17:344-7.
Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D. Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS One 2015;10:e0146021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146021.
Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J. The R Package geepack for Generalized Estimating Equations. J Stat Softw 2006;15:1-11. doi: 10.18637/jss.v015.i02.
Howard DR, Brown JM, Todd S, Gregory WM. Recommendations on multiple testing adjustment in multi-arm trials with a shared control group. Stat Methods Med Re 2018;27:1513-30.
Kanazawa M, Nitta M, Murata T, Suzuki T. Increased dosage of propofol in anesthesia induction cannot control the patient’s responses to insertion of a laryngeal mask airway. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 2006;31:35-8.
Yumura J, Koukita Y, Fukuda K, Kaneko Y, Ichinohe T. Low dose of fentanyl reduces predicted effect site concentration of propofol for flexible laryngeal mask airway insertion. J Anesth 2009;23:203 8.
Checketts MR, Alladi R, Ferguson K, Gemmell L, Handy JM, Klein AA, et al. Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2015: association of anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Anaesthesia 2016;71:85-93.
Gopinath MV, Ravishankar M, Nag K, Kumar VH, Velraj J, Parthasarathy S. Estimation of effect-site concentration of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion using fentanyl or morphine as adjuvant. Indian J Anaesth 2015;59:295-9.
Monteserín-Matesanz C, González T, Anadón-Baselga MJ, Zaballos M. Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway insertion requires a lower concentration of sevoflurane than ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled remifentanil infusion: a prospective randomised controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol 2020;20:5. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0921-5.
Ghai B, Jain K, Bansal D, Bhatia N. End-tidal sevoflurane concentration for ProSeal (TM) versus Classic (TM) laryngeal mask airway insertion in unpremedicated anaesthetised adult females. Anaesth Intensive Care 2016;44:221-6.
Mihai R, Knottenbelt G, Cook TM. Evaluation of the revised laryngeal tube suction: the laryngeal tube suction II in 100 patients. Br J Anaesth 2007;99:734-9.
Shukla S, Sharma AK, Sanjay R, Agrawal S, Teena, Kumar V. Comparison of three levels of target controlled infusion of propofol to assess ease of insertion of I-Gel. IOSR-JDMS 2020;19:44-7.
Ashay NA, Wasim S, Anil TB. Propofol requirement for insertion of I-gel versus laryngeal mask airway: a comparative dose finding study using Dixon’s up-and-down method. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:324–8.
Zaballos M, Bastida E, Agustí S, Portas M, Jiménez C, López Gil M. Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2015;15:131. doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0115-8.
Liew GH, Yu ED, Shah SS, Kothandan H. Comparison of the clinical performance of I-gel, LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in elective surgery. Singapore Med J 2016;57:432-7.
Pankaj K, Bhaskar N. Damaged Proseal™ LMA inflation line can be repaired. Indian J Anaesth 2010;54:481.
Hayashi K, Suzuki A, Kunisawa T, Takahata O, Yamasawa Y, Iwasaki H. A comparison of the single-use i-gel with the reusable laryngeal mask airway Proseal in anesthetized adult patients in Japanese population. Masui 2013;62:134-9.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
