Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Pharmacology, Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Neuropsychopharmacology Application and Research Center (NPFUAM), Üsküdar University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2021 Feb;238(2):569-577. doi: 10.1007/s00213-020-05707-5. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
The abused potential of some anesthetics has been debated. Measurement of locomotor sensitization is a better way to detect the neurobehavioral plasticity of addiction.
The present study aims to explore whether propofol and dexmedetomidine are capable of inducing locomotor sensitization.
Male Wistar rats (250-300 g) were the subjects (n = 8 for each group). Propofol (20 and 40 mg/kg) and dexmedetomidine (2.5-20 μg/kg) or saline were injected to rats intraperitoneally (IP), and their locomotor activities were recorded for 15 min. Consequently, L-NAME (30 and 60 mg/kg)-a nitric oxide (NO) inhibitory agent-was injected to rats 30 min before propofol (40 mg/kg) or saline injections, and the locomotor activity was recorded. The process was carried out for 13 days, with 7 sessions applied every other day.
Dexmedetomidine did not produce any significant locomotor sensitization. While propofol (20 mg/kg) produced a significant locomotor sensitization in the last treatment session (day 13), at the higher dose, it prompted a significant locomotor sensitization from the 3rd treatment session. L-NAME blocked propofol-induced locomotor hyperactivity and sensitization significantly without producing any noteworthy changes on the locomotor activity during the testing period of 13 days when administered alone.
Our results suggest that propofol but not dexmedetomidine produced a significant locomotor sensitization via central nitrergic system. Dexmedetomidine may have a lesser psychostimulant type addictive potential than propofol. Sensitization development by propofol implies that this drug might be effective on the neuroadaptive processes associated with a stimulant type of dependence.
一些麻醉剂的被滥用潜力一直存在争议。运动敏化的测量是检测成瘾神经行为可塑性的更好方法。
本研究旨在探讨异丙酚和右美托咪定是否能够诱导运动敏化。
雄性 Wistar 大鼠(250-300g)作为研究对象(每组 8 只)。异丙酚(20 和 40mg/kg)和右美托咪定(2.5-20μg/kg)或生理盐水通过腹腔内(IP)注射到大鼠体内,并记录它们的运动活动 15 分钟。随后,在异丙酚(40mg/kg)或生理盐水注射前 30 分钟,给予大鼠 L-NAME(30 和 60mg/kg)-一种一氧化氮(NO)抑制剂,并记录运动活动。该过程进行了 13 天,每隔一天进行 7 次。
右美托咪定没有产生任何显著的运动敏化。虽然异丙酚(20mg/kg)在最后一次治疗(第 13 天)中产生了显著的运动敏化,但在较高剂量下,它从第 3 次治疗开始就产生了显著的运动敏化。L-NAME 单独给药时,可显著阻断异丙酚诱导的运动过度活跃和敏化,而在 13 天的测试期间,对运动活动没有产生任何显著变化。
我们的结果表明,异丙酚而不是右美托咪定会通过中枢 nitrergic 系统产生显著的运动敏化。右美托咪定的精神兴奋剂成瘾潜力可能比异丙酚小。异丙酚引起的敏化发展表明,这种药物可能对与兴奋剂依赖相关的神经适应过程有效。