Free
Clinical Science  |   December 1999
Do Pipecuronium and Rocuronium Affect Human Bronchial Smooth Muscle? 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lucia Zappi, M.D.
    *
  • Pingfang Song, M.D.
    *
  • Siriana Nicosia, Ph.D.
  • Francesco Nicosia, M.D.
  • Kai Rehder, M.D.
    §
  • *Associate Consultant, Department of Anesthesiology, Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro. †Visiting Scientist, Genoa, Italy. ‡Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro. §Emeritus Professor of Anesthesiology and Physiology, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota.
Article Information
Clinical Science
Clinical Science   |   December 1999
Do Pipecuronium and Rocuronium Affect Human Bronchial Smooth Muscle? 
Anesthesiology 12 1999, Vol.91, 1616. doi:
Anesthesiology 12 1999, Vol.91, 1616. doi:
MUSCLE relaxants affect not only nicotinic receptors of neuromuscular junctions, but also muscarinic receptors of airways. 1,2 There are several subtypes of muscarinic receptors in the airways. The M3muscarinic receptors, located on the surface of smooth muscle cells, initiate contraction if stimulated. Stimulation of M2muscarinic receptors, located on postganglionic nerve endings of cholinergic nerves, inhibits acetylcholine release. 3 M2muscarinic receptors, located on the surface of smooth muscle cells, have several functions, including inhibition of adenylyl cyclase activity and relaxation in response to β2-adrenoceptor stimulation 4 and inhibition of large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channels, thus contributing to contractile responses to metacholine. 5 Interaction of muscle relaxants with muscarinic receptors of airways has been studied in anesthetized dogs 1 and guinea pigs, 2 but to our knowledge only the effect of gallamine has been studied in isolated human bronchial rings. 6 Because the distribution and relative abundance of receptors may vary between species, 7,8 the results of studies in animals cannot be extrapolated to human airways. Therefore, we decided to study the effect of two new muscle relaxants, the long-acting muscle relaxant pipecuronium bromide and the intermediate-acting agent rocuronium bromide (henceforth referred to as pipecuronium and rocuronium, respectively) on muscarinic receptors in human isolated bronchial rings.
Materials and Methods 
Bronchi were obtained from 12 patients (aged 40–77 yr) who underwent operation for removal of lung cancer. All patients received general anesthesia for the surgical procedure (the choice of anesthetic drugs was made by attending anesthesiologists). Surgical specimens, remote from the cancerous lesions, were obtained from the surgical waste after tissue had been removed for microscopic examination. The specimens were immersed in chilled, aerated (95% O2and 5% CO2) physiologic salt solution (PSS) of the following composition: NaCl, 110.5 μM; KCl, 3.4 μM; CaCl2, 2.4 μM; MgSO4, 0.8 μM; KH2PO4, 1.2 μM; NaHCO3, 25.7 μM; and dextrose, 5.6 μM. They were transported to the laboratory and stored overnight in aerated PSS at 4°C. Eight bronchial rings (2–4 mm ID) were used from each patient.
Procedure 
The bronchi were dissected from surrounding tissue without damaging the epithelium 9 and cut into rings of 4 to 5 mm. The rings were suspended between stirrups in 25-ml water-jacketed tissue baths containing aerated PSS with propranolol 10−6M at 37°C. The lower stirrup was connected via  a silk string to a stationary hook in the tissue bath; the upper stirrup was connected via  a silk string to a force transducer (model FT 03 D; Grass Medical Instruments, Quincy, MA) mounted on a micromanipulator. Two platinum electrodes (1 × 4 cm) were placed on each side of the rings. The rings were stimulated by electric field stimulation (EFS). EFS was provided by a direct-current amplifier (Mayo Clinic, Section of Engineering, Rochester, MN) triggered by an electric stimulator (Model S 44; Grass Medical Instruments). Isometric forces were recorded continuously (TA 4000; Gould, Valley View, OH). The rings were stretched to a resting force of 1 ± 0.4 g, which corresponds to optimal length in human bronchi of this size. 9 The lengths of the rings were not changed during the study.
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Postjunctional Muscarinic Receptors 
Pipecuronium and rocuronium were gifts from Organon Technika (Turnhout, Belgium). Four rings from each of the 12 patients (48 rings total) were incubated with 10−6M tetrodotoxin for 30 min to block the effect of prejunctional stimulation of muscarinic receptors by acetylcholine. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves were then obtained by cumulatively increasing the concentration of acetylcholine from 10−9to 10−2M in half-log increments. After the acetylcholine concentration–response curves were completed, the rings were washed with PSS until the resting forces were reestablished. The rings were then reincubated with 10−6M tetrodotoxin for 30 min. Three rings from each of 6 of 12 patients (18 rings total) were incubated for 30 min with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). The remaining rings from each patient (six rings each) were not incubated with pipecuronium and served as controls. Complete sets of acetylcholine concentration–response curves were again obtained. The same procedure was used in 24 rings from the other six patients to study the effect of 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), and 10−5M (n = 6) rocuronium.
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Nonstimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
Four other rings from each of the 12 patients (48 rings total) were stimulated for 30 s at 3-min intervals by EFS (25 Hz, 25 V, 0.5 ms) until three reproducible contractions were observed. Three rings from each of 6 of the 12 patients (18 rings total) were then incubated for 30 min with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6), and EFS was repeated. One ring from each patient (six rings total) was not incubated with pipecuronium and served as control. The same protocol was used in the 24 rings from the other six patients to study the effects of rocuronium, 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), and 10−5M (n = 6).
Effects of Pipecuronium or Rocuronium on Pilocarpine-stimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
Following the same procedure, the same 48 rings were incubated for 3 min with 10−9M pilocarpine, to stimulate M2muscarinic receptors. EFS (25 Hz, 25V, 0.5 ms), 30 s in duration, was then applied at 3-min intervals until the contractions became steady. The pilocarpine concentrations in the tissue bath were cumulatively increased in half-log increments up to a concentration of 10−4M after contractile responses to EFS became constant. After the study, all rings were blotted dry and weighed.
Data Analysis 
Active contractile forces (total contractile force minus resting force) in response to EFS or acetylcholine were corrected for the effect of time by assuming the effect of time in control rings to be equal to that in rings incubated with muscle relaxants. 7 Mean weights, maximal forces, and resting forces were compared by unpaired t  tests. Contractile responses of nonstimulated M2muscarinic receptors before and after incubation with pipecuronium or rocuronium were compared by paired t  tests.
Two-factor repeated-measure analysis of variance with the Newman–Keuls post hoc  test was used for statistical analysis of the pilocarpine concentration–response curves and concentrations necessary for 50% inhibition of contraction (IC50).
Data were considered to be significantly different if P  < 0.05. All data are reported as the mean ± SD.
Drugs 
Pilocarpine hydrochloride, DL-propranolol hydrochloride, acetylcholine chloride, and tetrodotoxin were purchased from Sigma (Milan, Italy). All drugs were dissolved in distilled water before use, and fresh solutions were prepared daily.
Results 
Resting forces of the rings in which the effect of pipecuronium was studied were not significantly different from rings in which rocuronium was studied (P  = 0.09). The maximal forces were significantly different between the two groups (P  < 0.03), but the difference in mean ring weights did not achieve statistical significance (P  = 0.33).
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Postjunctional Muscarinic Receptors 
Pipecuronium (10−7–10−5M) and rocuronium (10−7–10−5M) had no significant effects on acetylcholine concentration–response curves (P  > 0.07). Data for pipecuronium are shown in figure 1.
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
×
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Nonstimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
Pipecuronium (10−7to 10−5M) and rocuronium (10−7to 10−5M) had no significant effects on contractile responses to EFS (table 1).
Table 1. Effect of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on EFS-induced Contraction of Isolated Human Bronchial Rings 
Image not available
Table 1. Effect of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on EFS-induced Contraction of Isolated Human Bronchial Rings 
×
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Pilocarpine-stimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
Pilocarpine reduced significantly contractile responses to EFS in a concentration-dependent manner (P  < 0.0001)(fig. 2). Contractile responses to EFS were increased significantly after incubation with 10−7M pipecuronium at pilocarpine concentrations of 3 × 10−6and 10−5M (P  < 0.05), with 10−6M pipecuronium at 10−7to 3 × 10−6M pilocarpine (P  < 0.03), and with 10−5M pipecuronium at 10−7M to 3 × 10−5M pilocarpine concentrations (P  < 0.01). The IC50s of the pilocarpine concentration–response curves were significantly reduced by pipecuronium 10−6and 10−5M (P  = 0.02 and P  = 0.0004, respectively), but not with 10−7M pipecuronium (P  = 0.46). Conversely, rocuronium (10−7to 10−5M) had no significant effect (P  > 0.05) on the contractile responses to EFS at any pilocarpine concentration and did not significantly (P  > 0.15) reduce the IC50(table 2).
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
×
Table 2. IC50of Pilocarpine Concentration–Response Curves 
Image not available
Table 2. IC50of Pilocarpine Concentration–Response Curves 
×
No significant (P  > 0.14) differences in increases in resting forces between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M occurred (fig. 3). However, with 10−5M pipecuronium, increases in resting forces were significantly smaller than those in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations larger than 3 × 10−7M (P  < 0.002).
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
×
Discussion 
The two important findings of this study are that pipecuronium had an inhibitory effect on pilocarpine-stimulated prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors, but no effect on nonstimulated prejunctional M2- or on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. Rocuronium had neither pre- nor postjunctional inhibitory effects on muscarinic receptors.
Limitations 
One must be careful in extrapolating these results obtained in isolated human bronchi to humans in vivo  . First, only bronchi with internal diameters of 2–4 mm were studied. The diameters of the studied bronchi may be important because relative abundance of receptors may vary among airway generations. 7,8 Second, in intact subjects, the response of airways to muscle relaxants may be modulated by circulating hormones and humoral substances carried in the blood. This may be of particular importance in those muscle relaxants releasing histamine from mast cells. Furthermore, the response of airway smooth muscles may be altered by stimuli from the central nervous system.
Stimulation of muscarinic receptors in airways may result in synthesis and release of prostaglandins, 10 which in turn inhibit release of acetylcholine from postganglionic prejunctional cholinergic fibers, thus reducing contractile response to EFS. 11 To inhibit the reduction in contractile response, synthesis and release of prostaglandins can be experimentally antagonized by incubation with indomethacin. 7,12 But indomethacin can inhibit prejunctional M2muscarinic receptor function in guinea pigs 13; therefore, we decided not to incubate the bronchial rings with indomethacin.
Low concentrations of pilocarpine selectively stimulate prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors, 6,9 with no change in resting force. At higher concentrations postjunctional muscarinic M2- and M3muscarinic receptors also are stimulated, 6,9 resulting in an increase in resting force. EFS stimulates not only cholinergic nerves, but also excitatory and inhibitory nonadrenergic noncholinergic (i-NANC) nerves. Human airways have few excitatory nonadrenergic noncholinergic nerves, 14 making it unlikely that pipecuronium enhanced contractile responses by stimulation of excitatory nonadrenergic noncholinergic nerves. But human airways have i-NANC nerves. 15 Inhibition of i-NANC nerves by pipecuronium could contribute to the increased contractile responses to EFS. To exclude this possibility, we determined in eight bronchial rings from two additional patients the effect of 10−7to 10−5M pipecuronium on i-NANC nerve stimulation and found no consistent effect, suggesting that inhibition of i-NANC nerves by pipecuronium did not contribute to the increased contractile responses to EFS.
All patients received a general anesthetic. To remove the anesthetic drugs from the tissue, all bronchi were stored overnight in 100 ml aerated PSS, and they were washed repeatedly for 2 h with PSS on the day of the study before measurements were begun. One cannot exclude the possibility that the drugs were not washed out completely.
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Postjunctional Muscarinic Receptors 
Pipecuronium, 10−7to 10−5M, and rocuronium, 10−7to 10−5M, had no significant effects on acetylcholine concentration–response curves. Because the bronchial rings used for acetylcholine concentration–response curves were incubated with tetrodotoxin to interrupt neuronal conduction, only postjunctional effects of acetylcholine could contribute to the contractile response. The unchanged acetylcholine concentration–response curves therefore suggest that pipecuronium and rocuronium did not inhibit postjunctional muscarinic receptors. In canine isolated trachealis muscle, the specific M3antagonist 4-diphenylacetoxy-N  -methylpiperidine (4-DAMP) methiode attenuates the response to acetylcholine, suggesting that postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors primarily mediate the contractile response to acetylcholine. 16 Also, the characteristics of the antagonist effect of (PA2) 4-DAMP methiode on acetylcholine is consistent with M3receptors mediating contractile responses to acetylcholine. 16 By contrast gallamine, a specific M2-receptor agonist, does not alter the contractile response to acetylcholine in canine isolated trachealis muscle, 16 suggesting that postjunctional M3- and not M2muscarinic receptors mediate contractile responses to acetylcholine. Assuming human airways respond similarly, the data of this study suggest that pipecuronium and rocuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors.
But postjunctional M2muscarinic receptors can also contribute to contractile responses. 4 If pilocarpine stimulated postjunctional M2muscarinic receptors, inhibition of postjunctional M2muscarinic receptors by pipecuronium should reduce the resting force in response to pilocarpine. The increase in resting forces with pilocarpine was significantly less after incubation with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings, suggesting an inhibitory effect on postjunctional M2muscarinic receptors by this large dose of pipecuronium.
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Nonstimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
No consistent or convincing evidence for functional prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors in human airways using nonstimulated M2muscarinic receptors has been published. 6,8,17 We also did not find consistent or significant increases in contractile responses to EFS in bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium.
However, functional prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors have been shown in human isolated bronchi using pilocarpine-stimulated M2muscarinic receptors. 6,9 More recently, measurement of acetylcholine release in response to vagus nerve stimulation before and after incubation with M2muscarinic antagonists 3 has provided more direct evidence for functioning prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors in human airways.
Effects of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on Pilocarpine-stimulated M2Muscarinic Receptors 
Low concentrations of pilocarpine (10−9to 3 × 10−7M) selectively stimulated M2muscarinic receptors. Contractile responses to EFS were increased by pipecuronium 10−6and 10−5M at low concentrations of pilocarpine, suggesting that pipecuronium inhibited prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors. Inhibition of prejunctional M2-receptors has also been shown with gallamine in isolated human bronchi. 6 Rocuronium did not increase contractile responses to EFS at the three tested concentrations, suggesting that it had no inhibitory effects on prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors.
The conclusion of an inhibitory effect of pipecuronium on prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors agrees with observations by Okanlami et al.  2 in intact guinea pigs. These authors, however, suggested that the M2-inhibitory effect occurred at doses larger than used clinically. However, plasma concentrations of pipecuronium as high as 1.3 × 10−6M occur in humans after bolus injections of 0.07 mg/kg, 18 suggesting that pipecuronium may exert inhibitory effects on prejunctional M2muscarinic receptors during clinical practice.
In an elegant recent study, Hou et al.  19 determined the binding affinities of muscle relaxants in cells with either pure M2- or M3muscarinic receptor populations. These authors found a higher binding affinity for rocuronium (IC50= 3.0 μM) than for pipecuronium (IC50= 5.8 μM) for M2muscarinic receptors. These results appear to be inconsistent with the results of the current study, which found no effect of rocuronium on M2muscarinic receptors. However, in the study by Hou et al.  19 no statistical analyses for the binding affinities were included, and differences in binding affinities between pipecuronium and rocuronium were small compared with differences between pancuronium and pipecuronium or pancuronium and rocuronium.
The authors thank Professors Carla Carli and Roberto Giua, Drs. Luca Anselmi and Maurizio Chiaramondia, and Mauro Zampini for providing the tissue; Drs. Vito Brusasco and David Warner for valuable discussions and for reviewing the manuscript; and Janet Beckman for her consistently outstanding secretarial work.
References 
References 
Vettermann J, Beck KC, Lindahl SGE, Brichant JF, Rehder K: Actions of enflurane, isoflurane, vecuronium, atracurium, and pancuronium on pulmonary resistance in dogs. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1988; 69: 688–95
Okanlami OA, Fryer AD, Hirshman C: Interaction of nondepolarizing muscle relaxants with M2and M3muscarinic receptors in guinea pig lung and heart. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1996; 84: 155–61
Patel HJ, Barnes PJ, Takahashi T, Tadjkarimi S, Yacoub MH, Belvisi MG: Evidence for prejunctional muscarinic autoreceptors in human and guinea pig trachea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152: 872–8
Fernandez LB, Fryer AD, Hirshman CA: M2muscarinic receptors inhibit isoproterenol-induced relaxation of canine airway smooth muscle. J Pharm Exp Ther 1992; 262: 119–26
Kume H, Mikawa K, Takagi K, Kotlikoff MI: Role of G proteins and KCachannels in the muscarinic and β-adrenergic regulation of airway smooth muscle. Am J Physiol 1995; 268: L221–9
Minette PA, Barnes PJ: Prejunctional inhibitory muscarinic receptors on cholinergic nerves in human and guinea pig airways. J Appl Physiol 1988; 64: 2532–7
Zappi L, Song P, Nicosia S, Nicosia F, Rehder K: Inhibition of airway constriction by opioids is different down the isolated bovine airway. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1997; 86: 1334–41
ten Berge REJ, Zaagsma J, Roffel AF: Muscarinic inhibitory autoreceptors in different generations of human airways. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 154: 43–9
Song P, Milanese M, Crimi E, Rehder K, Brusasco V: Allergen challenge of passively sensitized human bronchi alters M2- and β2- receptor function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155: 1230–4
Jaiswal N, Malik KU: Prostaglandin synthesis elicited by cholinergic stimuli is mediated by activation of M2muscarinic receptors in rabbit heart. J Pharm Exp Ther 1988; 245: 59–66
Walters EH, O'Byrne PM, Fabbri LM, Graf PD, Holtzman MJ, Nadel JA: Control of neurotransmission by prostaglandins in canine trachealis smooth muscle. J Appl Physiol 1984; 57: 129–34
Zappi L, Nicosia F, Rocchi D, Song P, Rehder K: Opioid agonists modulate release of neurotransmitters in bovine trachealis muscle. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1995; 83: 543–51
Fryer AD, Okanlami OA: Neuronal M2muscarinic receptor function in guinea-pig lungs is inhibited by indomethacin. Am Rev Resp Dis 1993; 147: 559–64
Barnes PJ: Autonomic pharmacology of the airways, Pharmacology of the Respiratory Tract, Experimental and Clinical Research. Edited by Chung KF, Barnes PJ. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1993, pp 415–55
Belvisi MG, Stretton CD, Miura M, Verleden GM, Tadjkarimi S, Yacoub MH, Barnes PJ: Inhibitory NANC nerves in human tracheal smooth muscle: A quest for the neurotransmitter. J Appl Physiol 1992; 73: 2505–10
Brichant JF, Warner DO, Gunst SJ, Rehder K: Muscarinic receptor subtypes in canine trachealis. Am J Physiol 1990; 258: L349–54
Nagtegaal JE, Lammers JWJ, Rodrigues de Miranda JF, Gribnau FWJ: The search for prejunctional inhibitory muscarinic receptors in human bronchus. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1993; 322: 91–104
Caldwell JE, Castagnoli KP, Canfell PC, Fahey MR, Lynam DP, Fisher DM, Miller RD: Pipecuronium and pancuronium: Comparison of pharmacokinetics and duration of action. Br J Anaesth 1988; 61: 693–7
Hou VY, Hirshman CA, Emala ChW: Neuromuscular relaxants as antagonists for M2and M3muscarinic receptors. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1998; 88: 744–50
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
Fig. 1. Acetylcholine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with 10−5M (n = 6) pipecuronium. There was no significant difference between the curves (  P  = 0.82), suggesting that pipecuronium had no effect on postjunctional M3muscarinic receptors. 
×
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
Fig. 2. Pilocarpine concentration–response curves for control bronchial rings and bronchial rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7M (n = 6), 10−6M (n = 6), or 10−5M (n = 6). With pipecuronium 10−7M, contractile responses to EFS were significantly increased (  P  < 0.05) at 3 × 10−6and 10−5M pilocarpine, with pipecuronium 10−6M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−6M (  P  < 0.03), and with pipecuronium 10−5M at pilocarpine concentrations ranging from 10−7to 3 × 10−5M (  P  < 0.01). For clarity only standard deviations for control measurements and for pipecuronium 10−5M are shown. 
×
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
Fig. 3. No significant differences in increases of resting forces with pilocarpine between control rings and rings incubated with pipecuronium 10−7or 10−6M were found (  P  > 0.14). The increase in resting force, however, was significantly smaller in rings incubated with 10−5M pipecuronium than in control rings at pilocarpine concentrations > 3 × 10−7M (  P  < 0.002). 
×
Table 1. Effect of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on EFS-induced Contraction of Isolated Human Bronchial Rings 
Image not available
Table 1. Effect of Pipecuronium and Rocuronium on EFS-induced Contraction of Isolated Human Bronchial Rings 
×
Table 2. IC50of Pilocarpine Concentration–Response Curves 
Image not available
Table 2. IC50of Pilocarpine Concentration–Response Curves 
×