Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26715214›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2016

Propofol Breath Monitoring as a Potential Tool to Improve the Prediction of Intraoperative Plasma Concentrations.

Pieter Colin, Douglas J Eleveld, Johannes P van den Berg, Hugo E M Vereecke, Michel M R F Struys, Gustav Schelling, Christian C Apfel, Cyrill Hornuss

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exhaled Breath Analysis: From Laboratory Test to Wearable Sensing.IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering · 2025
    Review
  4. Humidity and measurement of volatile propofol using MCC-IMS (EDMON).Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Pieter ColinDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30 001, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands. P.J.Colin@umcg.nl.
Douglas J EleveldDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30 001, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.
Johannes P van den BergDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30 001, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.
Hugo E M VereeckeDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30 001, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.
Michel M R F StruysDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30 001, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.
Gustav SchellingDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Christian C ApfelDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Cyrill HornussDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLLMU Klinikum · DEUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMonitoring of drug concentrations in breathing gas is routinely being used to individualize drug dosing for the inhalation anesthetics. For intravenous anesthetics however, no decisive evidence in favor of breath concentration monitoring has been presented up until now. At the same time, questions remain with respect to the performance of currently used plasma pharmacokinetic models implemented in target-controlled infusion systems. In this study, we investigate whether breath monitoring of propofol could improve the predictive performance of currently applied, target-controlled infusion models.

methodsBased on data from a healthy volunteer study, we developed an addition to the current state-of-the-art pharmacokinetic model for propofol, to accommodate breath concentration measurements. The potential of using this pharmacokinetic (PK) model in a Bayesian forecasting setting was studied using a simulation study. Finally, by introducing bispectral index monitor (BIS) measurements and the accompanying BIS models into our PK model, we investigated the relationship between BIS and predicted breath concentrations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We show that the current state-of-the-art pharmacokinetic model is easily extended to reliably describe propofol kinetics in exhaled breath. Furthermore, we show that the predictive performance of the a priori model is improved by Bayesian adaptation based on the measured breath concentrations, thereby allowing further treatment individualization and a more stringent control on the targeted plasma concentrations during general anesthesia. Finally, we demonstrated concordance between currently advocated BIS models, relying on predicted effect-site concentrations, and our new approach in which BIS measurements are derived from predicted breath concentrations.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremIntraoperative PeriodAdultAnesthetics, IntravenousExhalationFemaleHumansMaleModels, BiologicalMonitoring, PhysiologicPropofolYoung AdultAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofol

Identifiers

PMID26715214
OpenAlexW2205662699

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.