Free
Correspondence  |   January 2011
Issues Regarding Propofol Concentrations within the Clinical Range
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Neil R. Gleason, M.D.
    *
  • *Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   January 2011
Issues Regarding Propofol Concentrations within the Clinical Range
Anesthesiology 1 2011, Vol.114, 218-219. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ff7a1e
Anesthesiology 1 2011, Vol.114, 218-219. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ff7a1e
In Reply:
We thank Drs. Kinoshita and Matsuda for their interest in our study.1 In that work, we did not seek to determine whether propofol protects against irritant-induced bronchoconstriction in the clinical situation established by previous clinical studies2,3 and clinical experience. In contrast, we sought to identify signaling pathways of irritant-induced bronchoconstriction against which propofol might be effective.
We demonstrated that, at the same concentration, propofol was more effective at attenuating contractions induced by nonadrenergic, noncholinergic nerve stimulation or tachykinins compared with contractions induced by cholinergic nerve stimulation or acetylcholine.1 This focus was selected because previous clinical studies4–6 suggested that propofol's protective airway effects were via  blockade of cholinergic mechanisms.
Drs. Kinoshita and Matsuda are concerned about our comparison of in vitro  bath concentrations of propofol with those measured in plasma. Comparing clinically measured plasma concentrations of a drug with concentrations achieved at a cellular level in vitro  remains challenging. In vivo  , although the majority of propofol is bound to serum proteins, extensive lung extraction of propofol has been demonstrated.7 In vitro  , drug concentrations at the level of the airway smooth muscle cell rely on tissue diffusion, and there is no benefit from microvascular delivery of the drug to the tissue as occurs in vivo  . Thus, different factors in vitro  and in vivo  dictate the drug concentrations achieved at the level of the airway smooth muscle cell. A direct comparison cannot be made until airway smooth muscle cellular concentrations are measured during in vivo  and in vitro  deliveries of propofol—a study that has yet to be done.
*Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
References
Gleason NR, Gallos G, Zhang Y, Emala CW: Propofol preferentially relaxes neurokinin receptor-2-induced airway smooth muscle contraction in guinea pig trachea. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:1335–44Gleason, NR Gallos, G Zhang, Y Emala, CW
Pizov R, Brown RH, Weiss YS, Baranov D, Hennes H, Baker S, Hirshman CA: Wheezing during induction of general anesthesia in patients with and without asthma. A randomized, blinded trial. Anesthesiology 1995; 82:1111–6Pizov, R Brown, RH Weiss, YS Baranov, D Hennes, H Baker, S Hirshman, CA
Eames WO, Rooke GA, Wu RS, Bishop MJ: Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:1307–11Eames, WO Rooke, GA Wu, RS Bishop, MJ
Hashiba E, Sato T, Hirota K, Hashimoto Y, Matsuki A: The relaxant effect of propofol on guinea pig tracheal muscle is independent of airway epithelial function and beta-adrenoceptor activity. Anesth Analg 1999; 89:191–6Hashiba, E Sato, T Hirota, K Hashimoto, Y Matsuki, A
Brown RH, Wagner EM: Mechanisms of bronchoprotection by anesthetic induction agents: Propofol versus  ketamine. Anesthesiology 1999; 90:822–8Brown, RH Wagner, EM
Hashiba E, Hirota K, Suzuki K, Matsuki A: Effects of propofol on bronchoconstriction and bradycardia induced by vagal nerve stimulation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003; 47:1059–63Hashiba, E Hirota, K Suzuki, K Matsuki, A
Kuipers JA, Boer F, Olieman W, Burm AG, Bovill JG: First-pass lung uptake and pulmonary clearance of propofol: Assessment with a recirculatory indocyanine green pharmacokinetic model. Anesthesiology 1999; 91:1780–7Kuipers, JA Boer, F Olieman, W Burm, AG Bovill, JG