ArticleBiopharmaceutics & drug disposition2010
Thromboelastographic and pharmacokinetic profiles of micro- and macro-emulsions of propofol in swine.
Article in Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCompared with traditional macroemulsion propofol formulations currently in clinical use, microemulsion formulations of this common intravenous anesthetic may offer advantages. The pharmacokinetics and coagulation effects as assessed by thromboelastography of these formulations were characterized in swine.
methodsYorkshire swine (20-30 kg, either sex, n=15) were sedated, anesthetized with isoflurane, and instrumented to obtain a tracheostomy, internal jugular access and carotid artery catheterization. Propofol (2 mg/kg, 30 s) was administered as a macroemulsion (10 mg/ml; Diprivan; n=7) or a custom (2 mg/kg, 30 s) microemulsion (10 mg/ml; n=8). Arterial blood specimens acquired pre- and post-injection (1 and 45 min) were used for thromboelastography. Arterial blood specimens (n=12 samples/subject, 60 min) were serially collected, centrifuged and analysed with solid-phase extraction with UPLC to determine propofol plasma concentrations. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was applied to plasma concentrations.
resultsNo changes were noted in the thromboelastographic R time (p=0.74), K time (p=0.41), alpha angle (p=0.97), or maximal amplitude (p=0.71) for either propofol preparation. Pharmacokinetic parameters k (p=0.45), t(1/2) (p=0.26), C(o) (p=0.89), AUC(0-infinity) (p=0.23), CL (p=0.14), MRT (p=0.47), V(ss) (p=0.11) of the two formulations were not significantly different.
conclusionThe microemulsion and macroemulsion propofol formulations had similar pharmacokinetics and did not modify thromboelastographic parameters in swine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.