Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia
Year: 2010  |  Volume: 104  |  Issue: 5  |  Page No.: 563 - 576

Effectiveness, safety, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of microemulsion propofol in patients undergoing elective surgery under total intravenous anaesthesia

J. A Jung, B. M Choi, S. H Cho, S. M Choe, J. L Ghim, H. M Lee, Y. J Roh and G. J. Noh    

Abstract: Background

The aims of this study were to investigate the effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of microemulsion propofol, AquafolTM (Daewon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea).

Methods

In total, 288 patients were randomized to receive 1% AquafolTM or 1% Diprivan® (AstraZeneca, London, UK) (n=144, respectively). A 30 mg test dose of propofol was administered i.v. over 2 s for assessing injection pain. Subsequently, a bolus of propofol 2 mg kg–1 (–30 mg) was administered. Anaesthesia was maintained with a variable rate infusion of propofol and a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil. Mean infusion rates of both formulations and times to loss of consciousness (LOC) and recovery of consciousness (ROC) were recorded. Adverse events and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics were evaluated.

Results

Mean infusion rate of AquafolTM was not statistically different from that of Diprivan® (median: 6.2 vs 6.3 mg kg–1 h–1). Times to LOC and ROC were slightly prolonged in AquafolTM (median: 21 vs 18 s, 12.3 vs 10.8 min). AquafolTM showed similar incidence of adverse events to Diprivan®. AquafolTM (vs Diprivan®) caused more severe (median VAS: 72.0 vs 11.5 mm) and frequent (81.9 vs 29.2%) injection pain. The dose-normalized AUClast of AquafolTM and Diprivan® was 0.71 (0.19) and 0.74 (0.20) min litre–1. The V1 of both formulations were proportional to lean body mass. Sex was a significant covariate for k12 and Ce50 of AquafolTM, and for ke0 of Diprivan®.

Conclusions

AquafolTM was as effective and safe as Diprivan®, but caused more severe and frequent injection pain. AquafolTM demonstrated similar pharmacokinetics to Diprivan®.

View Fulltext    |   Related Articles   |   Back
   
 
 
 
  Related Articles

No Article Found
 
 
 
Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility