Murat I, Billard V, Vernois J, Zaouter M, Marsol P, Souron R, Farinotti R
Service d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital d'Enfants Armand Trousseau, Paris, France.
Anesthesiology. 1996 Mar;84(3):526-32. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199603000-00006.
No complete pharmacokinetic profile of propofol is yet available in children younger than 3 yr, whereas clinical studies have demonstrated that both induction and maintenance doses of propofol are increased with respect to body weight in this age group compared to older children and adults. This study was therefore undertaken to determine the pharmacokinetics of propofol after administration of a single dose in aged children 1-3 yr requiring anesthesia for dressing change.
This study was performed in 12 children admitted to the burn unit and in whom burn surface area was less than or equal to 12% of total body surface area. Exclusion criteria were: unstable hemodynamic condition, inappropriate fluid loading, associated pulmonary injury, or burn injury older than 2 days. Propofol (4 mg.kg(-1))plus fentanyl (2.5 microg.kg(-1)) was administered while the children were bathed and the burn area cleaned during which the children breathed spontaneously a mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide (50:50). Venous blood samples of 300 microl were obtained at 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min, and 3, 4, 8, and 12 thereafter injection; an earlier sample was obtained from 8 of 12 children. The blood concentration curves obtained for individual children were analyzed by three different methods: noncompartmental analysis, mixed effects population model, and standard two-stage analysis.
Using noncompartmental analysis, total clearance of propofol (+/-SD) was 0.053+/-0.013l.kg(-1).min(-1), volume of distribution at steady state9.5 +/- 3.7l.kg(-1),and residence time 188 +/- 85 min. Propofol pharmacokinetics were best described by a weight-proportional three-compartmental model in both population and two-stage analysis. Estimated and derived pharmacokinetic parameters were similar using these two pharmacokinetic approaches. Results of population versus two-stage analysis are as follow: systemic clearance 0.049 versus 0.048 l.kg(-).min(-1), volume of central compartment 1.03 versus 0.95 l.kg(-1), volume of steady state 8.09 versus 8.17 l.kg(-1).
The volume of the central compartment and the systemic clearance were both greater than all values reported in older children and adults. This is consistent with the increased propofol requirements for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia in children 1-3 yr. (Key words: Anesthesia: pediatric. Pharmacokinetics: propofol.)
3岁以下儿童尚无完整的丙泊酚药代动力学资料,而临床研究表明,与大龄儿童及成人相比,该年龄组丙泊酚的诱导剂量和维持剂量按体重计算均有所增加。因此,本研究旨在确定1至3岁需行换药麻醉的大龄儿童单次给予丙泊酚后的药代动力学情况。
本研究纳入12名入住烧伤科的儿童,其烧伤面积小于或等于全身表面积的12%。排除标准为:血流动力学不稳定、液体负荷不当、合并肺损伤或烧伤超过2天。在给儿童洗澡及清洁烧伤部位时给予丙泊酚(4mg·kg⁻¹)加芬太尼(2.5μg·kg⁻¹),在此期间儿童自主呼吸氧气和氧化亚氮的混合气体(50:50)。分别于注射后5、15、30、60、90和120分钟以及3、4、8和12小时采集300μl静脉血样;12名儿童中有8名采集了更早的血样。采用三种不同方法分析各儿童的血药浓度曲线:非房室分析、混合效应群体模型和标准两阶段分析。
采用非房室分析,丙泊酚的总清除率(±标准差)为0.053±0.013l·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,稳态分布容积为9.5±3.7l·kg⁻¹,驻留时间为188±85分钟。在群体分析和两阶段分析中,丙泊酚的药代动力学均最好用体重比例三室模型描述。使用这两种药代动力学方法估算和推导的药代动力学参数相似。群体分析与两阶段分析的结果如下:全身清除率分别为0.049和0.048l·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,中央室容积分别为1.03和0.95l·kg⁻¹,稳态容积分别为8.09和8.17l·kg⁻¹。
中央室容积和全身清除率均高于大龄儿童和成人报道的所有值。这与1至3岁儿童麻醉诱导和维持时丙泊酚需求量增加是一致的。(关键词:麻醉:儿科。药代动力学:丙泊酚。)