Nguyen A, Ramzan I
Department of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Br J Anaesth. 1997 Feb;78(2):197-200. doi: 10.1093/bja/78.2.197.
The contribution of the anticonvulsant agent, valproic acid, to the interaction between neuromuscular blockers and anticonvulsants remains unclear. Therefore, this study was undertaken to examine the acute neuromuscular effects of valproic acid and its potential for interaction with neuromuscular blocking drugs. Phrenic nerve-hemidiaphragm preparations from rats were mounted in modified Krebs buffer, maintained at 37 degrees C and aerated with a 5% carbon dioxide-95% oxygen gas mixture. Phrenic nerves were stimulated with 0.1 Hz supramaximal pulses of 0.2-ms duration and the elicited tension of the hemidiaphragm was recorded in seven preparations in the presence of valproic acid 100, 500 and 1000 mumol litre-1. In another six preparations, neuromuscular transmission was blocked completely with the non-depolarizing blocker tubocurarine 3 mumol litre-1 and the hemidiaphragm muscle was stimulated directly (2 Hz and 2 ms duration). The effect of the anticholinesterase drug, neostigmine, on an established block induced by valproic acid 1000 mumol litre-1 was also evaluated in five phrenic nerve stimulated preparations. The effect of valproic acid 100, 500 or 1000 mumol litre-1 on suxamethonium- or atracurium-induced neuromuscular block was also evaluated. Valproic acid produced a mean of 29.7 (SEM 1.7)% and 24.7 (1.7) % block of indirectly or directly elicited muscle twitches. The concentration of valproic acid that caused half maximal paralysis did not differ between indirect (460 (59) mumol litre-1) and direct (329 (35) mumol litre-1) stimulation. Neostigmine 1-3 mumol litre-1 failed to significantly alter the block of 19.8% induced by valproic acid 1000 mumol litre-1. Valproic acid 100, 500 or 1000 mumol litre-1 did not alter the concentrations of suxamethonium or atracurium needed to produce paralysis. These findings suggest that valproic acid does not produce significant block at the rat neuromuscular junction. The partial block that is produced is caused predominantly by a direct inhibitory effect on the muscle itself.
抗惊厥药丙戊酸在神经肌肉阻滞剂与抗惊厥药相互作用中所起的作用仍不清楚。因此,开展本研究以检测丙戊酸的急性神经肌肉效应及其与神经肌肉阻滞药物相互作用的可能性。将大鼠膈神经-半膈肌标本置于改良的克雷布斯缓冲液中,维持在37℃,并用5%二氧化碳-95%氧气混合气体通气。膈神经用0.1Hz、持续时间0.2ms的超强脉冲刺激,在存在100、500和1000μmol/L丙戊酸的7个标本中记录半膈肌引发的张力。在另外6个标本中,用3μmol/L的非去极化阻滞剂筒箭毒碱完全阻断神经肌肉传递,然后直接刺激半膈肌(2Hz、持续时间2ms)。在5个膈神经刺激标本中还评估了抗胆碱酯酶药物新斯的明对1000μmol/L丙戊酸所致既定阻滞的影响。还评估了100、500或1000μmol/L丙戊酸对琥珀胆碱或阿曲库铵所致神经肌肉阻滞的影响。丙戊酸分别使间接或直接引发的肌肉抽搐平均阻滞29.7(标准误1.7)%和24.7(1.7)%。引起半数最大麻痹的丙戊酸浓度在间接刺激(460(59)μmol/L)和直接刺激(329(35)μmol/L)之间无差异。1~3μmol/L新斯的明未能显著改变1000μmol/L丙戊酸所致的19.8%的阻滞。100、500或1000μmol/L丙戊酸未改变产生麻痹所需的琥珀胆碱或阿曲库铵浓度。这些发现表明,丙戊酸在大鼠神经肌肉接头处不会产生显著阻滞。所产生的部分阻滞主要是由对肌肉本身的直接抑制作用引起的。