Pharmacodynamic interaction between sevoflurane and remifentanil regarding tolerance of responses to electrical tetanus stimuli

王慧玲,杨璐,张利萍,郭向阳,毕姗姗,卢炜
2012-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To describe the pharmacodynamic interactions between remifentanil (≤10 ng·mL -1) and sevoflurane (≤3.4%) in suppressing somatic and hemodynamic responses to electrical tetanus stimuli (ETS) with response surface method. Methods: Sixty-five patients of ASAI, aged 20~50 years, were scheduled for study. Each patient was randomly assigned to one of sevoflurane concentrations (0%~3.4%). Remifentanil was administrated by TCI. Each patient received a fixed end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane. The target concentrations of remifentanil were increased in a stepwise ascending fashion from 0 ng·mL -1 to 10 ng·mL -1. After reaching pseudo-steady state drug levels, the somatic and hymodynamic responses to ETS were assessed at each target concentration pair. The pharmacodynamic interactions between remifentanil and sevoflurane were analyzed by response surface method. NONMEM was used to estimate the parameter values. Minitab software was used to construct the three-dimensional response surfaces. Results: The three-dimensional response surfaces showed that sevoflurane-remifentanil interactions were strongly synergistic for blunting responses to ETS. When the target concentration of remifentanil was 3 ng·mL -1, the MAC of sevoflurane for blunting responses to ETS decreased by more than 50%. Then ceiling effect was seen when the target concentration of remifentanil was further increased. When the target concentration of remifentanil was 10 ng·mL -1, the values of sevoflurane MAC for blunting somatic and hymodymamic responses to ETS were 0.41% and 0.47%, respectively. Conclusion: Response surface method can analyze the pharmacodynamic interactions between sevoflurane and remifentanil qualitatively and quantitatively. The interactions are strongly synergistic for blunting responses to ETS. Sevoflurane-remifentanil synergistic interactions on ablating hemodynamic responses to ETS are stronger than that on blunting somatic responses.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?