Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12392590›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2002

Pharmacokinetics and effects of propofol 6% for short-term sedation in paediatric patients following cardiac surgery.

Catherijne A J Knibbe, Gitte Melenhorst-de Jong, Maaike Mestrom, Carin M A Rademaker, Allart F A Reijnvaan, Klaas P Zuideveld, Paul F M Kuks, Hans van Vught, Meindert Danhof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The role of population PK-PD modelling in paediatric clinical research.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011
    Review
  5. Modelling and simulation as research tools in paediatric drug development.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011 · on this map
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dose estimation for children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2003
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Catherijne A J KnibbeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, St Antonius Hospital, PO Box 2500, 3430 EM Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. knibhoef@worldonline.nl
Gitte Melenhorst-de Jong
Maaike Mestrom
Carin M A Rademaker
Allart F A Reijnvaan
Klaas P Zuideveld
Paul F M Kuks
Hans van Vught
Meindert Danhof

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis paper describes the pharmacokinetics and effects of propofol in short-term sedated paediatric patients.

methodsSix mechanically ventilated children aged 1-5 years received a 6 h continuous infusion of propofol 6% at the rate of 2 or 3 mg kg-1 h-1 for sedation following cardiac surgery. A total of seven arterial blood samples was collected at various time points during and after the infusion in each patient. Pharmacokinetic modelling was performed using NONMEM. Effects were assessed on the basis of the Ramsay sedation score as well as a subjective sedation scale.

resultsThe data were best described by a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model. In the model, body weight was a significant covariate for clearance. Pharmacokinetic parameters in the weight-proportional model were clearance (CL) = 35 ml kg-1 min-1, volume of central compartment (V1) = 12 l, intercompartmental clearance (Q) = 0.35 l min-1 and volume of peripheral compartment (V2) = 24 l. The interindividual variabilities for these parameters were 8%, < 1%, 11% and 35%, respectively. Compared with the population pharmacokinetics in adults following cardiac surgery and when normalized for body weight, statistically significant differences were observed the parameters CL and V1 (35 vs 29 ml kg-1 min-1 and 0.78 vs 0.26 l kg-1P < 0.05), whereas the values for Q and V2 were similar (23 vs 18 ml kg-1 min-1 and 1.6 vs 1.8 l kg-1, P > 0.05). In children, the percentage of adequately sedated patients was similar compared with adults (50% vs 67%) despite considerably higher propofol concentrations (1.3 +/- 0.10 vs 0.51 +/- 0.035 mg l-1, mean +/- s.e. mean), suggesting a lower pharmacodynamic sensitivity to propofol in children.

conclusionsIn children aged 1-5 years, a pharmacokinetic model for propofol was described using sparse data. In contrast to adults, body weight was a significant covariate for clearance in children. The model may serve as a useful basis to study the role of covariates in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in paediatric patients of different ages.

Indexed as

Thoracic Surgical ProceduresAdultChild, PreschoolChromatography, High Pressure LiquidDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfantInfusions, IntravenousPropofolHypnotics and SedativesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID12392590
PMCPMC1874439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.