Vuyk J, Engbers F H, Burm A G, Vletter A A, Bovill J G
Department of Anaesthesiology, Leiden University Hospital, The Netherlands.
Anesth Analg. 1995 Dec;81(6):1275-82. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199512000-00026.
Computer-controlled infusion of propofol is used with increasing frequency for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The performance of computer-controlled infusion devices is highly dependent on how well the implemented pharmacokinetic parameter set matches the pharmacokinetics of the patient. This study examined the performance of a computer-controlled infusion device when provided with five different pharmacokinetic parameter sets of propofol in female patients. The infusion rate-time data that had been stored on a disk from 19 female patients who had been given propofol by computer-controlled infusion, using the pharmacokinetic parameter set from Gepts et al. (Anesth Analg 1987;66:1256-63), were entered into a computer simulation program to recalculate predicted propofol concentrations that would have been obtained with four other pharmacokinetic parameter (Shafer et al., Anesthesiology 1988;69:348-56; Kirkpatrick et al., Br J Anesth 1988;60:146-50; Cockshott et al., Br J Anesth 1987;59:941P; Tackley et al., Br J Anesth, 1989;62:46-53) sets of propofol, had these been implemented. The performance error (PE) was determined for each measured blood propofol concentration, on the basis of each of the five pharmacokinetic parameter sets. Then, for each of the five pharmacokinetic parameter sets, the performance in the population was determined by the median absolute performance error (MDAPE), the median performance error (MDPE), the wobble (the median absolute deviation of each PE from the MDPE), and the divergence (the percentage change of the absolute PE with time). The MDPE and MDAPE were compared between the parameter sets by the multisample median test. The initially used pharmacokinetic parameter set from Gepts et al. resulted in a MDPE of 24% and MDAPE of 26%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
丙泊酚的计算机控制输注在麻醉诱导和维持中的应用频率日益增加。计算机控制输注设备的性能高度依赖于所实施的药代动力学参数集与患者药代动力学的匹配程度。本研究考察了在女性患者中为计算机控制输注设备提供丙泊酚的五种不同药代动力学参数集时该设备的性能。将19例接受丙泊酚计算机控制输注的女性患者的输注速率-时间数据(使用Gepts等人的药代动力学参数集,《麻醉与镇痛》1987年;66:1256 - 63)存储在磁盘上,输入计算机模拟程序,以重新计算使用其他四种丙泊酚药代动力学参数集(Shafer等人,《麻醉学》1988年;69:348 - 56;Kirkpatrick等人,《英国麻醉学杂志》1988年;60:146 - 50;Cockshott等人,《英国麻醉学杂志》1987年;59:941P;Tackley等人,《英国麻醉学杂志》1989年;62:46 - 53)时本应获得的预测丙泊酚浓度。基于五种药代动力学参数集中的每一种,为每个测量的血液丙泊酚浓度确定性能误差(PE)。然后,对于五种药代动力学参数集中的每一种,通过中位数绝对性能误差(MDAPE)、中位数性能误差(MDPE)、摆动(每个PE相对于MDPE的中位数绝对偏差)和离散度(绝对PE随时间的百分比变化)来确定总体中的性能。通过多样本中位数检验比较各参数集之间的MDPE和MDAPE。最初使用的Gepts等人的药代动力学参数集导致MDPE为24%,MDAPE为26%。(摘要截选至250字)