Reduction by Fentanyl of the Cp50Values of Propofol and Hemodynamic Responses to Various Noxious Stimuli

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Propofol and fentanyl infusion rates should be varied according to the patient's responsiveness to stimulation to maintain satisfactory anesthetic and operative conditions. However, somatic and autonomic responses to various noxious stimuli have not been investigated systematically for intravenous propofol and fentanyl anesthesia. Methods: Propofol and fentanyl were administered via computer-assisted continuous infusion to provide stable concentrations and to allow equilibration between plasma-blood and effect-site concentrations. The propofol concentrations needed to suppress eye opening to verbal command and motor responses after 50-Hz electric tetanic stimulation, laryngoscopy, tracheal intubation, and skin incision in 50% or 95% of patients (Cp50 and Cp95) were determined at fentanyl concentrations of 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 ng/ml in 133 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. The ability of propofol with fentanyl to suppress hemodynamic reactions in response to various noxious stimuli also was evaluated by measuring arterial blood pressure and heart rate before and after stimulation. Results: The various Cp50 values for propofol alone (no fentanyl) for the various stimuli increased in the following order: Cp50loss of consciousness, 4.4 microg/ml (range, 3.8-5.0); Cp50tetanus, 9.3 microg/ml (range, 8.3-10.4); Cp50laryngoscopy, 9.8 microg/ml (range, 8.9-10.8); Cp50skin incision, 10.0 microg/ml (range, 8.1-12.2); and Cp50intubation, 17.4 microg/ml (range, 15.1-20.1; 95% confidence interval). The reduction of Cp50loss of consciousness, with fentanyl was minimal; 11% at 1 ng/ml of fentanyl and 17% at 3 ng/ml of fentanyl. A plasma fentanyl concentration of 1 ng/ml (3 ng/ml) resulted in a 31-34% (50-55%) reduction of the propofol Cp50s for tetanus, laryngoscopy, intubation, and skin incision. Propofol alone depresses prestimulation blood pressure but had no influence on the magnitude blood pressure or heart rate increase to stimulation. Propofol used with fentanyl attenuated the systolic blood pressure increases to various noxious stimuli in a dose-dependent fashion. Conclusions: The authors successfully defined the propofol concentration required for various stimuli. Tracheal intubation was the strongest stimulus. The absence of somatic reactions for propofol does not guarantee hemodynamic stability without fentanyl. Propofol with fentanyl was able to suppress motor and hemodynamic reactions to various noxious stimuli.