Meeting Abstracts  |   March 1999
Mechanisms of Bronchoprotection by Anesthetic Induction Agents  : Propofol versus Ketamine
Author Notes
  • (Brown) Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and Environmental Health Sciences/Division of Physiology.
  • (Wagner) Associate Professor, Department of Medicine/Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Critical Care and Environmental Health Sciences/Division of Physiology.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   March 1999
Mechanisms of Bronchoprotection by Anesthetic Induction Agents  : Propofol versus Ketamine
Anesthesiology 3 1999, Vol.90, 822-828. doi:
Anesthesiology 3 1999, Vol.90, 822-828. doi:
This article is featured in “This Month in Anesthesiology.” Please see this issue of Anesthesiology, page 7A.
INDUCTION of anesthesia and intubation of the trachea causes airway constriction. In patients with asthma, tracheal intubation can increase the risk for development of severe bronchospasm. When intubation is required, the use of premedications [1-4] and inhalational anesthetic agents [5-9] may reduce this risk. Moreover, a rapid acting intravenous induction agent is often required to facilitate securing the airway. The most effective induction agent for prevention of bronchospasm in patients with asthma remains controversial, however. Two intravenous induction agents, propofol and ketamine, have been purported to decrease the risk of bronchospasm on induction of anesthesia and intubation. Propofol has been shown to decrease the prevalence of wheezing after induction of anesthesia and intubation of the trachea in normal and asthmatic patients compared with thiopental. [10-12] Likewise, ketamine has been shown to be effective at preventing and actually reversing wheezing in patients with asthma who require anesthesia and intubation. [13,14] 
It is generally presumed that the major mechanism of action of ketamine on airways in vivo is through indirect actions by prevention of the reuptake of circulating catecholamines, which leads to bronchodilation. [15] In vitro data have suggested that ketamine and propofol have direct airway smooth muscle relaxant effects [16-21] and neural effects. [22-26] Whether these mechanisms are important in vivo have not been determined. Therefore, we undertook the current study to examine the local airway effects of propofol and ketamine on attenuating direct and reflex induced airway constriction. We used a sheep model in which we could administer the anesthetic agents directly to the airways via the bronchial artery.
We found that at clinically relevant concentrations, ketamine and propofol diminished vagally induced airway constriction compared with thiopental. Further, propofol also decreased the direct effects of methacholine on airway smooth muscle, but this only occurred at the highest dose administered. Therefore, these data demonstrate that the local bronchoprotective effects of ketamine and propofol on airways is through neurally mediated mechanisms. Although direct effects on airway smooth muscle occur at high concentrations, these effects are unlikely to be of primary clinical relevance.
Our study protocol was approved by The Johns Hopkins Animal Care and Use Committee. Anesthesia was induced in eight sheep (25-35 kg) with intramuscularly administered ketamine (30 mg/kg) and subsequently maintained with pentobarbital sodium (20 mg [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] h-1). A tracheostomy was performed, the sheep were paralyzed with pancuronium bromide (2 mg intravenously, with supplementation during the experiment), and the lungs were mechanically ventilated with room air with supplemental oxygen at a rate of 15 breaths/min and a tidal volume of 12 ml/kg. Five centimeters of H2O positive end-expiratory pressure was applied. The left thorax was opened at the fifth intercostal space, and heparin (20,000 U) was administered. The esophageal and thoracic tracheal branches of the bronchoesophageal artery were ligated as previously described. [27] The bronchial branch was then cannulated with an 18-gauge angiocatheter and perfused with a constant flow (0.6 ml [middle dot] min-1[middle dot] kg (-1)) of autologous blood withdrawn from a femoral artery catheter by a variable-speed pump (Gilson, Villiers-Le-Bel, France). Systemic blood pressure, heart rate, and bronchial arterial pressure were measured continuously throughout the study.
Airways Resistance
Conducting airways resistance (Raw) was measured by forced oscillation. [28] In this method, a gas volume of [almost equal to] 30 ml is oscillated for 1.5 s at a frequency of 9 Hz after each tidal breath. Airway pressure is measured at a side arm of the tracheal cannula, and a flow signal is obtained from a pneumotachograph positioned between the oscillator and the cannula. Oscillatory signals are analyzed with an on-line computer that measures pressures at points of peak flow. An average resistance is obtained over 8-10 oscillatory cycles. Baseline Rawmeasured in this manner in anesthetized sheep typically results in a value of 1.0-2.0 cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s-1, which is close to values reported by others. [29,30] 
Airways Reactivity
Intrabronchial Artery Infusion. Airways reactivity was determined by measuring Rawbefore and after intrabronchial artery infusion of methacholine. Methacholine was delivered through a sideport of the bronchial artery perfusion circuit. From previous experiments, we have confirmed that a plateau in the increase in Rawis achieved within 2 min of agonist delivery. Sheep received a continuous infusion of methacholine in a concentration of 1-2 [micro sign]g/ml at 2 ml/min through the bronchial artery, which caused an [almost equal to] 100% increase in Raw. With a nominal bronchial artery perfusion rate of 20 ml/min, this delivery rate resulted in calculated molar concentration between 5 x 10-7m to 10-6m methacholine. After a 2-min delivery, the infusion pump was turned off and the animal allowed to recover to prechallenge level.
Vagal Nerve Stimulation. The vagus nerves were isolated, and nerve stimulator electrodes were attached bilaterally (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, MA). After establishing baseline Raw, the vagal nerves were simultaneously stimulated bilaterally (30 Hz, 30 ms duration, 40 V, 9 s), which caused bronchoconstriction and a decrease in heart rate. Both of these responses rapidly reversed on cessation of stimulation (<30 s).
The sheep were anesthetized and ventilated as described earlier. After a 30-min recovery period (and 2 h after the intramusculary administered ketamine), baseline Rawwas measured, and the airways were constricted first by vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) as described while Rawwas measured. After recovery to baseline (2-3 min), methacholine was infused through the bronchial artery and Rawwas measured again. After recovery to baseline (3-5 min), in random order, the three anesthetic agents were infused into the bronchial artery. The concentration for all the drugs was 5 mg/ml, and the infusion rates were 0.06, 0.20, and 0.60 ml/min. After 10 min of infusion at a each rate, the Rawwas measured prechallenge and during constriction by VNS and infusion of methacholine. After recovery, the next rate was infused and the airway measurements repeated. After the final rate of infusion for a specific drug, the sheep were allowed to recover (30-60 min), baseline measurements were repeated, and the next drug was infused.
The concentration of anesthetic drug in the bronchial circulation was calculated. With a controlled infusion of autologous blood into the bronchial artery at 20 ml/min, and the infusion rates of 0.06, 0.20, and 0.60 ml/min of anesthetic drugs into the perfusate, we calculated the molar concentrations of thiopental to be 5.6 x 10-5M, 1.9 x 10-4M, and 5.6 x 10-4M, respectively. Likewise for propofol, we calculated the molar concentrations to be 8.4 x 10-5M, 2.8 x 10-4M, and 8.4 x 10 (-4), respectively. For ketamine, the calculated molar concentrations were 5.4 x 10-5M, 1.8 x 10-4M, and 5.4 x 10.0-4M, respectively.
Systemic blood pressure was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance. Baseline stimulation (100%) for each sheep for each drug was defined as the change in Rawwith VNS and methacholine before infusion of that specific anesthetic drug into the bronchial artery. The changes in R (aw) as a percent of baseline stimulation were analyzed separately for each drug by one-way analysis of variance, with Bonferroni correction for repeated measures within the sheep. The effective dose that caused a 50% decrease in baseline response (ED50) was calculated along the linear part of the dose-response curves (first dose to third dose) for ketamine and propofol for the VNS and methacholine challenge each sheep. The means of the ED50values were compared for each challenge by paired t test. Statistical significance was considered to be P <or= to 0.05.
Baseline systemic blood pressure was 119 +/− 15/88 +/− 16 (systolic/diastolic mean +/− SD) and did not vary significantly during challenges either by drug (P = 0.92) or by dose (P = 0.38). Baseline Rawwas 1.95 +/− 0.14 cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s-1. Infusion of the three anesthetic agents into the bronchial artery did not significantly alter the baseline Rawbefore each challenge either by dose (P = 0.88) or by drug (P = 0.83)(Table 1). Further, before infusion of anesthetic drug, VNS and methacholine caused a significant increase in R (aw) at baseline (maximum response). Vagal nerve stimulation at baseline increased Rawto 5.61 +/− 0.53 cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s-1(mean +/− SEM), which was not significantly different among drugs (P = 0.93). Methacholine increased Rawto 3.46 +/− 0.18 cm H (2) O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s-1, which also did not differ among drugs (P = 0.59).
Table 1. Baseline Raw (cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s (-1)) Values (Mean +/− SD) for Each Anesthetic for Each Dose prior to Challenges
Image not available
Table 1. Baseline Raw (cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s (-1)) Values (Mean +/− SD) for Each Anesthetic for Each Dose prior to Challenges
Thiopental, at all of the doses administered, did not attenuate R (aw) during either VNS or infusion of methacholine. At concentrations of 5.6 x 10-5M, 1.9 x 10-4M, and 5.6 x 10-4M of thiopental, VNS increased Rawto 94 +/− 25%, 91 +/− 17%, and 80 +/− 28% of control stimulation, respectively (P = 0.92). Similarly, thiopental had no effect on the increase in Rawwith methacholine challenge. Airways resistance increased to 95 +/− 12%, 88 +/− 18%, and 195 +/− 90%, respectively (P = 0.14).
Alternatively, propofol and ketamine had a profound effect on the airway responses to stimulation. Propofol caused a dose-dependent attenuation in the VNS-induced bronchoconstriction. At concentrations of 8.4 x 10-5M, 2.8 x 10-4M, and 8.4 x 10-4M, VNS increased Rawto only 83 +/− 5%, 50 +/− 5%, and 26 +/− 11% of maximum (Figure 1, P < 0.0001). Further, propofol had an effect on methacholine-induced airway constriction but only at the highest concentration. At the concentrations administered, methacholine increased Rawto 124 +/− 19%, 96 +/− 14%, and 43 +/− 27% of maximum (Figure 2, P = 0.05).
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Ketamine showed the greatest decrease in the airway response to VNS. At concentrations of 5.4 x 10-5M, 1.8 x 10-4M, and 5.4 x 10 (-4) M, VNS increased Rawto only 87 +/− 19%, 38 +/− 7%, and 8 +/− 2%, respectively (Figure 1, P = 0.0004). At the concentrations delivered, methacholine increased Rawto 114 +/− 14%, 108 +/− 17%, and 56 +/− 17% of maximum (Figure 2, P = 0.14).
For the VNS challenge, the mean ED50values for ketamine and propofol were 1.52 +/− 0.58 x 10-4and 3.54 +/− 0.63 x 10-4, respectively. The ED50value for ketamine was significantly lower than the ED50value for propofol during VNS (P = 0.03). For the methacholine challenge, the ED50values for ketamine and propofol were 7.93 +/− 3.3 x 10-4and 5.30 +/− 0.88 x 10-4, respectively, which were not significantly different (P = 0.38).
Our results show that propofol and ketamine protect against induced airway constriction compared with thiopental. Further, the major mechanism of this bronchoprotection was attenuation of neurally mediated constriction with minimal effects through attenuation of direct airway smooth muscle contraction.
Because the animals needed to be anesthetized during the study, we used a continuous infusion of pentobarbital to maintain anesthesia. We chose pentobarbital because it should not have significant effects on airway reactivity at maintenance doses. [31] In addition, a continuous infusion was used to maintain a constant depth of anesthesia. Because the anesthetic drug challenges were randomized, any changes in depth of anesthesia over time would also be random and would not have biased our results. Further, beyond an adequate depth of anesthesia, deepening barbiturate anesthesia does not appear to influence airway reactivity or tone. [32,33] The finding that the infusion of thiobarbiturate in combination with the pentobarbital intravenous anesthetic agent had no effect on either VNS or methacholine-induced airway constriction also supports the lack of effect of the maintenance pentobarbital anesthesia.
We chose concentrations of drug that would be clinically relevant. In a recent study, Ludbrook et al. [34] examined the rate of administration of propofol on peak arterial concentrations of propofol. When 100 mg of propofol was administered at 200 mg/min, a peak brain arterial concentration of 30 [micro sign]g/ml was measured, which would correspond to a concentration of 1.7 x 10-4M, and in the middle of our dose range. Therefore, the doses we used appear to be clinically relevant as measured by doses for induction of anesthesia in sheep.
One of our goals was to study the direct bronchoprotective effects of these anesthetic agents and to eliminate any potential confounding effects that these agents might induce through circulating catecholamines systemically. We continuously measured the blood pressure and heart rate in each animal throughout the study. Because the heart rate was profoundly affected by the VNS challenges, we did not analyze this variable as a measure of systemic catecholamine release. In addition, we believed that any increase in systemic catecholamines from the administration of ketamine would be detected easily by increased blood pressure, which we measured continuously by an indwelling arterial catheter. We found no significant changes in blood pressure during the infusion of ketamine nor the other two anesthetic agents into the bronchial artery, even at the highest concentrations. This supports our belief of a lack of significant systemic delivery of the anesthetic agents that were infused into the bronchial artery. Therefore, the decrease in airway responses we observed were local to the airways and not attributable to changes in circulating catecholamines or systemic changes.
Although the effects of inhalational anesthetic agents on baseline airway tone have been demonstrated clearly to cause relaxation, [8] the effects of intravenous agents such as propofol and ketamine are inconclusive. Several investigators have reported relaxant effects of ketamine and propofol on airway tone in vitro, [17,20] and others have reported no effect of these drugs on smooth muscle tone. [18,35] In an older clinical study reported by Huber et al., [14] intravenously administered ketamine caused a dose-dependent decrease in Rawin healthy subjects and in those with acute and chronic reactive airways disease. These patients were intubated, however, which would have increased Raw. Further, prevention of reuptake of circulating catecholamines from the intravenous administration of ketamine [15] is the most likely explanation of the observed decrease in Rawwith increasing ketamine doses. [23,25] Our results do not support an effect of these drugs on baseline airway tone. We observed no decrease in baseline tone even at the highest concentration delivered directly to the airways. Further, using systemic blood pressure as a marker for increased circulating catecholamines, no change was detected. Therefore, unlike inhalational anesthetic agents, decreased baseline airway tone is unlikely to be an important clinical cause of bronchoprotection by these two agents in asthmatic patients.
The effects of propofol and ketamine at preventing induced bronchoconstriction have been examined more extensively. In vitro [16-21,35,36] and in vivo studies in animals [37] and humans [38-40] have shown that propofol and ketamine are able to attenuate the response to a variety of bronchoconstrictor agents. Consistent with these previous studies, our results also show that propofol and ketamine but not thiopental were able to attenuate induced airway constriction. We found that ketamine and propofol reduced the vagal-induced increase in Rawin a dose-dependent fashion. Although we did not observe complete prevention of the vagal-induced increase in Raw, this may be attributable to the doses administered or to protein binding. We chose to administer doses that would be achieved clinically during induction of anesthesia. [41-43] 
It is noteworthy that neither drug prevented the methacholine-induced increase in Raw. Propofol decreased the methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction to 43% of maximum whereas ketamine decreased it to 56% of maximum. The decrease in methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction by propofol did achieve statistical significance (P = 0.05), but that of ketamine did not (P = 0.14). One reason for this marginal statistical significance was attributable to the variability among sheep. Clearly, a decrease to approximately one half in the response to methacholine should be significant. The difference may be accounted for by the slightly different concentrations of drug administered. Although we infused the ketamine and propofol at the same rate, the difference in molecular weight led to a slightly higher molar concentration of propofol to be administered compared with ketamine. Whether reaching statistical significance at the highest dose we infused or at higher does has clinical relevance remains in doubt, however. It is clear that at the lower doses we administered that are clinically relevant, the major effect of these drugs was on neural responses.
Consistent with our findings, several investigators have examined the mechanisms for neural depression by ketamine and propofol. Shrivastav [26] showed that ketamine, applied externally to giant squid axon, depolarized the nerve in a concentration-dependent fashion, reduced inward peak transient currents, and reduced steady-state current. Cronnelly et al. [22] demonstrated that ketamine affected the amplitude but not the frequency of miniature end-plate potentials of frog sartorius muscle.
Further, McGrath et al. [24] showed that ketamine depressed preganglionic sympathetic discharge in a dose-related fashion in rabbits. The results from Lundy and Frew [23] and Nedergaard [25] suggested that ketamine affected neural transmission by blocking extraneuronal uptake of catecholamines through inhibition of a neuronal membrane pump, which transports norepinephrine into the adrenergic neurones. Biddle et al. [44] examined the effects of propofol on the neural responses in a rat artery smooth muscle preparation. They found that propofol attenuated the response to exogenous norepinephrine and the response to endogenous norepinephrine release from nerve terminals induced by electrical field stimulation. Any direct effect of the drugs on smooth muscle, however, would also inhibit a neurally mediated bronchoconstriction. Our findings are consistent with the ability of these drugs to diminish neural responses through prejunctional effects. It was somewhat surprising that we did not observe a decrease in baseline tone; however, this may be related to the resting tone in the sheep.
That the primary mechanism of propofol and ketamine inhibition of bronchoconstriction is through neural mechanisms is also consistent with clinical investigations. Ketamine and propofol have been shown to protect against bronchoconstriction on induction of anesthesia and intubation of the trachea. [10-12] The increase in Rawwith airway manipulation such as bronchoscopy or tracheal intubation is mediated through neural mechanisms, which can also be blocked by the administration of local anesthetic agents. [45] Whether the exact mechanism of neural depression by propofol and ketamine is the same as that of local anesthetic agents remains to be determined.
Finally, whether propofol and ketamine are effective at reversing bronchoconstriction is currently not clear. There is some anecdotal evidence that propofol [40,46] and ketamine [13] can reverse bronchoconstriction. When bronchoconstriction was induced in healthy subjects with ultrasonic aerosols, however, inhaled halothane but not intravenously administered ketamine reversed the increased Raw. [47] Unfortunately, our study was not designed to address this question.
Propofol and ketamine attenuate induced bronchoconstriction. Both have local effects on the airways, with their major mechanism of bronchoprotection occurring through depression of neurally induced bronchoconstriction. In addition, these drugs depress direct airway smooth muscle activation, but this appears to be less important at clinically relevant concentrations. Furthermore, ketamine is more potent than propofol at preventing neurally induced bronchoconstriction.
Wu SC, Hildebrandt J, Isner PD, Pierson DJ, Bishop MJ: Efficacy of anticholinergic and [small beta, Greek]-adrenergic agonist treatment of maximal cholinergic bronchospasm in tracheally intubated rabbits. Anesth Analg 1992; 75:777-83
Kil HK, Rooke GA, Ryan-Dykes MA, Bishop MJ: Effect of prophylactic bronchodilator treatment on lung resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1994; 81:43-8
Groeben H, Foster WM, Brown RH: Intravenous lidocaine and oral mexiletine block reflex bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 154:885-8
Groeben H, Brown RH: Ipratropium decreases airway size by preferential M2 muscarinic receptor blockade. Anesthesiology 1996; 85:867-73
Vettermann J, Beck KC, Lindahl SHE, Brichant JF, Rehder K: Actions of enflurane, isoflurane, vecuronium, atracurium and pancuronium on pulmonary resistance in dogs. Anesthesiology 1988; 69:688-95
Hirshman CA, Edelstein G, Peetz S, Wayne R, Downes H: Mechanism of action of inhalational anesthesia on airways. Anesthesiology 1982; 56:107-11
Alexander CM, Chen L, Ray R, Marshall BE: The influence of halothane and isoflurane on pulmonary collateral ventilation. Anesthesiology 1985; 62:135-40
Brown RH, Mitzner W, Zerhouni E, Hirshman CA: Direct in vivo visualization of bronchodilation induced by inhalational anesthesia using high resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Anesthesiology 1993; 78:295-300
Brown RH, Zerhouni EA, Hirshman CA: Comparison of low concentrations of halothane and isoflurane as bronchodilators. Anesthesiology 1993; 78:1097-101
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; 82:1111-6
Eames WO, Rooke A, Wu R, Bishop MJ: Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:1307-11
Wu RSC, Wu KC, Sum DCW, Bishop MJ: Comparative effects of thiopentone and propofol on respiratory resistant after tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77:735-8
Corssen G, Gutierrez J, Reves JC, Huber FC: Ketamine in the anesthetic management of asthmatic patients. Anesth Analg 1972; 51:588-96
Huber FC, Reeves JG, Gutierrez J, Corssen G: Ketamine: Its effect on airway resistance in man. South Med J 1972; 65:1176-80
Baraka A, Harrison T, Kachachi T: Catecholamine levels after ketamine anesthesia in man. Anesth Analg 1973; 52:198-200
Cheng EY, Mazzeo AJ, Bosnjak ZJ, Coon RL, Kampine JP: Direct relaxant effects of intravenous anesthetics on airway smooth muscle. Anesth Analg 1996; 83:162-8
Lundy PM, Gowdey CW, Calhoun EH: Tracheal smooth muscle relaxant effect of ketamine. Br J Anaesth 1974; 46:333-6
Vitkun SA, Foster WM, Chang H, Bergofsky EH, Poppers PJ: Bronchodilating effects of the anesthetic ketamine in an in vitro guinea pig preparation. Lung 1987; 165:101-13
Sato T, Matsuki A, Zsigmond EK, Rabito SF: Ketamine relaxes airway smooth muscle contracted by endothelin. Anesth Analg 1997; 84:900-6
Pedersen CM, Thirstrup S, Nielsen-Kudst JE: Smooth muscle relaxant effects of propofol and ketamine in isolated guinea-pig trachea. Eur J Pharmacol 1993; 238:75-80
Ouedraogo N, Roux E, Forestier F, Rossetti M, Savineau J, Marthan R: Effects of intravenous anesthetics on normal and passively sensitized human isolated airway smooth muscle. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:317-26
Cronnelly R, Dretchen KL, Sokoll MD, Long JP: Ketamine: Myoneural activity and interaction with neuromuscular blocking agents. Eur J Pharmacol 1973; 22:17-22
Lundy PM, Frew R: Ketamine potentiates catecholamine responses of vascular smooth muscle by inhibition of extraneuronal uptake. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1981; 59:520-7
McGrath JC, Mackenzie JE, Miller RA: Effects of ketamine on the central sympathetic discharge and the baroreceptor reflex during mechanical ventilation. Br J Anaesth 1975; 47:1141-7
Nedergaard OA: Cocaine-like effect of ketamine on vascular adrenergic neurones. Eur J Pharmacol 1973; 23:153-61
Shrivastav BB: Mechanism of ketamine block of nerve conduction. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1977; 201:162-70
Wagner EM, Mitzner W, Bleecker ER: Effects of airway pressure on bronchial blood flow. J Appl Physiol 1987; 62:561-6
Goldman M, Knudson RJ, Mead J, Peterson N, Schwaber JR, Wohl ME: A simplified measurement of respiratory resistance by forced oscillation. J Appl Physiol 1970; 28:113-6
Long WM, Yerger LD, Abraham WM, Lobel C: Late-phase bronchial vascular responses in allergic sheep. J Appl Physiol 1990; 69:584-90
Mariassy AT, Gazeroglu H, Wanner A: Morphometry of the subepithelial circulation in sheep airways, effects of vascular congestion. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991; 143:162-6
Curry C, Lenox WC, Spannhake EW, Hirshman CA: Contractile responses of guinea pig trachea to oxybarbiturates and thiobarbiturates. Anesthesiology 1991; 75:679-83
Steinhaus JE, Gaskin L: A study of intravenous lidocaine as a suppressant of cough reflex. Anesthesiology 1963; 24:285-90
Brown RH, Zerhouni EA, Mitzner W: Variability in the size of individual airways over the course of one year. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151:1159-64
Ludbrook GL, Upton RN, Grant C, Martinez A: The effect of rate on administration on brain concentrations of propofol in sheep. Anesth Analg 1998; 86:1301-6
Gateau O, Bourgain J-L, Gaudy J-H, Benveniste J: Effects of ketamine on isolated human bronchial preparations. Br J Anaesth 1989; 63:692-5
Wanna HT, Gergis SD: Procaine, lidocaine, and ketamine inhibit histamine-induced contracture of guinea pig tracheal muscle in vitro. Anesth Analg 1978; 47:25-7
Hirshman CA, Downes H, Farbood A, Bergman NA: Ketamine block of bronchospasm in experimental canine asthma. Br J Anaesth 1979; 51:713-8
Olwoch IP, Brandt HD, du Plooy WJ: Effect of aerosolized ketamine on histamine-induced bronchospasm in healthy volunteers. Med Sci Res 1993; 21:831-2
Olwoch IP, Brandt HD, du Plooy WJ: Aerosolized ketamine prevents histamine-induced bronchospasm. Med Sci Res 1994; 22:257-8
Conti G, Utri DD, Vilardi V, De Blasi RA, Pelaia P, Bufi M, Rosa G, Gaspareto G: Propofol induces bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1993; 37:105-9.
Burch PG, Stanski DR: The role of metabolism and protein binding in thiopental anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1983; 58:146-52
Idvall J, Ahlgren I, Aronsen KF, Stenberg P: Ketamine infusions: Pharmacokinetics and clinical effects. Br J Anaesth 1979; 51:1167-73
Servin F, Desmonts JM, Haberer JP, Cockshott ID, Plummer GF, Farinotti R: Pharmacokinetics and protein binding of propofol in patients with cirrhosis. Anesthesiology 1988; 69:887-91
Biddle NL, Gelb AW, Hamilton JT: Propofol differentially attenuates the responses to exogenous and endogenous norepinephrine in the isolated rat femoral artery in vitro. Anesth Analg 1995; 80:793-9
Foster WM, Hurewitz AN: Aerosolized lidocaine reduces dose of topical anesthetic for bronchoscopy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992; 146:520-2
Pedersen CM: The effect of sedation with propofol on postoperative bronchoconstriction in patients with hyperreactive airway disease. Int Care Med 1992; 18:45-6
Waltemath CL, Bergman NA: Effects of ketamine and halothane on increased respiratory resistance provoked by ultrasonic aerosols. Anesthesiology 1974; 41:473-6
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 1. Raw response to vagal nerve stimulation in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). *P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Figure 2. Raw response to methacholine in eight sheep during increased doses of propofol (squares) and ketamine (diamonds). #P < 0.05 compared with baseline.
Table 1. Baseline Raw (cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s (-1)) Values (Mean +/− SD) for Each Anesthetic for Each Dose prior to Challenges
Image not available
Table 1. Baseline Raw (cm H2O [middle dot] l-1[middle dot] s (-1)) Values (Mean +/− SD) for Each Anesthetic for Each Dose prior to Challenges