ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2015
Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of propofol externally validated in children.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetic pharmacodynamic modeling of analgesics and sedatives in children.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2023Review
- Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of propofol externally validated in Korean elderly subjects.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2023Article
- The relationship between the effect-site concentration of propofol and sedation scale in children: a pharmacodynamic modeling study.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Observational
- Interpretation of volume kinetics in terms of pharmacokinetic principles.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2021Article
- External Validation of a Pharmacokinetic Model of Propofol for Target-Controlled Infusion in Children under Two Years Old.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Accuracy assessment of a PION TCI pump based on international standards.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2019Article
- A Population Pharmacokinetic Model of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine for Mechanically Ventilated Children after Neurosurgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- HCN channels contribute to the sensitivity of intravenous anesthetics in developmental mice.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- A Simulation Study of Propofol Effect-Site Concentration for Appropriate Sedation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Brain MRI: Pharmacodynamic Analysis.Yonsei medical journal · 2017Article
- Spectral Gini Index for Quantifying the Depth of Consciousness.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There have been no pharmacokinetic parameters and blood-brain equilibration rate constant (k e0) of propofol obtained in a single population of children, by which propofol can be administered using a target effect-site concentration controlled infusion. Thirty-nine, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status 1-2 children aged 2-12 years were given an intravenous bolus of propofol (3 mg kg(-1)), followed by infusion (200 µg kg(-1) min(-1)). Arterial drug concentrations and bispectral index (BIS) values were measured. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effects modeling. External model validation was performed in a separate population of children. A two-compartment model and a sigmoid E max model directly linked by an effect compartment well described the time courses of propofol concentration and BIS. The estimates of parameters were: V 1 (L) = 1.69, V 2 (L) = 27.2 + 0.929 × (weight - 25), Cl (L min(-1)) = 0.893 × (weight/23.6)(0.966), Q (L min(-1)) = 1.3; E 0 = 76.9; E max = 35.4, Ce 50 (μg mL(-1)) = 3.47 - (0.095 × age) - (1.63 × mean infusion rate of remifentanil in µg kg(-1) min(-1)); γ = 2.1; and k e0 (min(-1)) = 0.371. Pooled biases (95 % CI) of the target effect-site concentration controlled infusion system of propofol was -20.2 % (-23.3 to -18.1 %) and pooled inaccuracy was 30.4 % (28.6-32.7 %). Pooled biases of BIS prediction was -6.8 % (-9.1 to -4.1 %) and pooled inaccuracies was 19.1 % (17.5-20.9 %).The altered weight-based dose requirements of propofol are well described pharmacokinetically, and pharmacodynamically. Predictive performances of the TCI system in this study were clinically acceptable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25724290What 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.