Song Dajun, Hamza Mohamed, White Paul F, Klein Kevin, Recart Alejandro, Khodaparast Omeed
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75390-9068, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2004 Mar;98(3):687-91, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000103184.36451.d7.
Using a randomized, double-blind protocol design, we compared a new lower-lipid emulsion of propofol (Ampofol) containing propofol 1%, soybean oil 5%, and egg lecithin 0.6% with the most commonly used formulation of propofol (Diprivan) with respect to onset of action and recovery profiles, as well as intraoperative efficacy, when administered for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia as part of a "balanced" anesthetic technique in 63 healthy outpatients. Anesthesia was induced with sufentanil 0.1 microg/kg (or fentanyl 1 microg/kg) and propofol 2 mg/kg IV and maintained with a variable-rate propofol infusion, 120-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Onset times to loss of the eyelash reflex and dropping a syringe were recorded. Severity of pain on injection, speed of induction, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and electroencephalographic bispectral index values were assessed. Recovery times to opening eyes and orientation were noted. The results demonstrated that there were no significant differences between Ampofol and Diprivan with respect to onset times, speed of induction, anesthetic dose requirements, bispectral index values, hemodynamic variables, recovery variables, or patient satisfaction. However, the incidence of pain on injection was more frequent in the Ampofol group (26% versus 6%, P < 0.05). We conclude that Ampofol is equipotent to Diprivan with respect to its anesthetic properties but was associated with a more frequent incidence of mild pain on injection.
The pharmacodynamic profile of a lower-lipid containing emulsion of propofol (Ampofol) was compared with Diprivan when administered for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. This preliminary study demonstrated that the two formulations of propofol were equivalent with respect to their induction and maintenance properties. However, Ampofol was associated with a more frequent incidence of pain on injection.
采用随机双盲方案设计，我们将一种新的含1%丙泊酚、5%大豆油和0.6%蛋黄卵磷脂的低脂质丙泊酚乳剂（Ampofol）与最常用的丙泊酚制剂（Diprivan）在起效时间和恢复情况方面进行了比较，同时比较了在63例健康门诊患者中作为“平衡”麻醉技术一部分用于全身麻醉诱导和维持时的术中疗效。麻醉诱导采用舒芬太尼0.1μg/kg（或芬太尼1μg/kg）和丙泊酚2mg/kg静脉注射，并用可变速率丙泊酚输注维持，速率为120 - 200μg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹。记录睫毛反射消失和注射器掉落的起效时间。评估注射时的疼痛程度、诱导速度、术中血流动力学变量和脑电图双谱指数值。记录睁眼和定向的恢复时间。结果表明，Ampofol和Diprivan在起效时间、诱导速度、麻醉剂量需求、双谱指数值、血流动力学变量、恢复变量或患者满意度方面无显著差异。然而，Ampofol组注射时疼痛的发生率更高（26%对6%，P < 0.05）。我们得出结论，Ampofol在麻醉特性方面与Diprivan等效，但注射时轻度疼痛的发生率更高。
将一种含低脂质的丙泊酚乳剂（Ampofol）与Diprivan在用于全身麻醉诱导和维持时的药效学特征进行了比较。这项初步研究表明，两种丙泊酚制剂在诱导和维持特性方面相当。然而，Ampofol注射时疼痛的发生率更高。
