Maurer Felix, Geiger Martin, Volk Thomas, Sessler Daniel I, Kreuer Sascha
CBR- Center of Breach Research, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Saarland University Medical Center and Saarland University Faculty of Medicine, 66482 Homburg, Saar, Germany; The Center of Breath Research is part of the Outcomes Research, Cleveland, OH, USA.
CBR- Center of Breach Research, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Saarland University Medical Center and Saarland University Faculty of Medicine, 66482 Homburg, Saar, Germany; The Center of Breath Research is part of the Outcomes Research, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2017 Sep 5;143:116-122. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.05.042. Epub 2017 May 31.
Plasma concentrations of intravenous drugs cannot currently be evaluated in real time to guide clinical dosing. However, a system for estimating plasma concentration of the anesthetic propofol from exhaled breath may soon be available. Developing reliable calibration and analytical validation techniques is thus necessary. We therefore compared the established sorbent tube liquid injection technique with a gas injection procedure using a reference gas generator. We then quantified propofol with Tenax sorbent tubes in combination with gas-chromatography coupled mass spectrometry in the breath of 15 patients (101 measurements). Over the clinically relevant concentration range from 10 to 50 ppb, coefficient of determination was 0.995 for gas calibration; and over the range from 10 to 100ng, coefficient of determination was 0.996 for liquid calibration. A regression comparing gas to liquid calibration had a coefficient of determination of 0.89; slope 1.05±0.01 (standard deviation). The limit of detection was 0.74ng and the lower limit of quantification was 1.12ng for liquid; the limit of detection was 0.90 ppb and the lower limit of quantification was 1.36 ppb for gas. Loaded sorbent tubes were stable for at least 14days without significant propofol loss as determined with either method. Measurements from liquid or gas samples were comparably suitable for evaluation of patient breath samples.
目前无法实时评估静脉注射药物的血浆浓度以指导临床给药。然而,一种从呼出气体中估算麻醉剂丙泊酚血浆浓度的系统可能很快就会问世。因此,开发可靠的校准和分析验证技术是必要的。我们因此将既定的吸附剂管液体注射技术与使用参考气体发生器的气体注射程序进行了比较。然后,我们在15名患者的呼出气体中(共101次测量),使用Tenax吸附剂管结合气相色谱-质谱联用法定量丙泊酚。在10至50 ppb的临床相关浓度范围内,气体校准的决定系数为0.995;在10至100 ng的范围内,液体校准的决定系数为0.996。气体校准与液体校准的回归分析决定系数为0.89;斜率为1.05±0.01(标准差)。液体的检测限为0.74 ng,定量下限为1.12 ng;气体的检测限为0.90 ppb,定量下限为1.36 ppb。用两种方法测定,装填后的吸附剂管至少14天稳定,丙泊酚无明显损失。液体或气体样本的测量同样适用于评估患者呼出气体样本。