Free
Perioperative Medicine  |   December 2019
Population Pharmacodynamics of Propofol and Sevoflurane in Healthy Volunteers Using a Clinical Score and the Patient State Index: A Crossover Study
Author Notes
  • From the Departments of Anesthesiology (M.H.K., P.J.C., K.M.E.M.R., H.N., F.H.K., H.E.M.V., M.M.R.F.S.) and Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (D.J.T.), University Medical Center Groningen and the Department of Pharmacy, Section of Pharmacokinetics, Toxicology and Targeting, (D.J.T.), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; the Department of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (P.J.C.) and the Department of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (M.M.R.F.S.), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; and the Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, AZ St.-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium (H.E.M.V.).
  • This article is featured in “This Month in Anesthesiology,” page 1A.
    This article is featured in “This Month in Anesthesiology,” page 1A.×
  • This article is accompanied by an editorial on p. 1199.
    This article is accompanied by an editorial on p. 1199.×
  • This article has a related Infographic on p. 17A.
    This article has a related Infographic on p. 17A.×
  • This article has an audio podcast.
    This article has an audio podcast.×
  • This article has a visual abstract available in the online version.
    This article has a visual abstract available in the online version.×
  • Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are available in both the HTML and PDF versions of this article. Links to the digital files are provided in the HTML text of this article on the Journal’s Web site (www.anesthesiology.org).
    Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are available in both the HTML and PDF versions of this article. Links to the digital files are provided in the HTML text of this article on the Journal’s Web site (www.anesthesiology.org).×
  • Part of this study was presented as a poster titled “Comparison between Two Versions of the Patient State Index® during Propofol and Sevoflurane Anesthesia, with or without Remifentanil” at Euroanaesthesia, the European Anaesthesiology Congress, June 4, 2017, in Geneva, Switzerland.
    Part of this study was presented as a poster titled “Comparison between Two Versions of the Patient State Index® during Propofol and Sevoflurane Anesthesia, with or without Remifentanil” at Euroanaesthesia, the European Anaesthesiology Congress, June 4, 2017, in Geneva, Switzerland.×
  • Submitted for publication September 13, 2018. Accepted for publication August 2, 2019.
    Submitted for publication September 13, 2018. Accepted for publication August 2, 2019.×
  • Address correspondence to Dr. Kuizenga: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands. m.h.kuizenga@umcg.nl. This article may be accessed for personal use at no charge through the Journal Web site, www.anesthesiology.org.
Article Information
Perioperative Medicine / Clinical Science / Pharmacology
Perioperative Medicine   |   December 2019
Population Pharmacodynamics of Propofol and Sevoflurane in Healthy Volunteers Using a Clinical Score and the Patient State Index: A Crossover Study
Anesthesiology 12 2019, Vol.131, 1223-1238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002966
Anesthesiology 12 2019, Vol.131, 1223-1238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002966
Abstract

Editor’s Perspective:

What We Already Know about This Topic:

  • Hypnotic drug effects can be assessed as the presence or absence of standard clinical endpoints, such as tolerance to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout

  • Antinociceptive drug effects can be assessed as the presence or absence of tolerance to tetanic stimulus

  • The Patient State Index is a processed, electroencephalographic-derived index that is considered by some to be a drug-independent representation of the depth of sedation and anesthesia

What This Article Tells Us That Is New:

  • A four-period randomized sequence crossover study determined the concentration–effect relationships for both propofol and sevoflurane, both with and without remifentanil coadministration, with effects measured as tolerance to standard stimuli and by the Patient State Index

  • The sevoflurane Patient State Index values associated with a 50% probability of tolerance to the standard stimuli were higher for than those for propofol

  • Adding a 2 ng · ml−1 predicted effect-site remifentanil concentration increased all Patient State Index values associated with a 50% probability of tolerance to the standard stimuli, but 4 ng · ml−1 produced additional effects only during propofol administration

Background: The population pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane with or without opioids were compared using the endpoints no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, tolerance to tetanic stimulus, and two versions of a processed electroencephalographic measure, the Patient State Index (Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2).

Methods: This is a reanalysis of previously published data. Volunteers received four anesthesia sessions, each with different drug combinations of propofol or sevoflurane, with or without remifentanil. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to study the relationship between drug concentrations, clinical endpoints, and Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2.

Results: The C50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation for propofol (µg · ml−1) and sevoflurane (vol %; relative standard error [%]) were 1.62 (7.00)/0.64 (4.20), 1.85 (6.20)/0.90 (5.00), and 2.82 (15.5)/0.91 (10.0), respectively. The C50 values for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 were 1.63 µg · ml−1 (3.7) and 1.22 vol % (3.1) for propofol and sevoflurane. Only for sevoflurane was a significant difference found in the pharmacodynamic model for Patient State Index-2 compared with Patient State Index-1. The pharmacodynamic models for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 as a predictor for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tetanic stimulation were indistinguishable, with Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane of 46.7 (5.1)/68 (3.0), 41.5 (4.1)/59.2 (3.6), and 29.5 (12.9)/61.1 (8.1), respectively. Post hoc C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were perfectly correlated (correlation coefficient = 1) for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout. Post hoc C50 and Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane for tolerance to tetanic stimulation were independent within an individual (correlation coefficient = 0).

Conclusions: The pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane were described on both population and individual levels using a clinical score and the Patient State Index. Patient State Index-2 has an improved performance at higher sevoflurane concentrations, and the relationship to probability of responsiveness depends on the drug used but is unaffected for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2.

It remains unclear how to quantitatively compare the pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane in the absence or presence of opioids in a patient during anesthesia. Comparing the concentration–effect relationships for various specific hypnotic–opioid drug combinations might be interesting to clinicians when titrating combined hypnotics during anesthesia or when switching between drugs during a case.1,2 
Anesthesia can considered to be the combination of the hypnotic drug effect producing loss of consciousness and the analgesic drug effect (antinociception) inhibiting induced noxious stimuli (nociception).1  Hypnotic drug effects can be measured using clinical endpoints such as no response to calling the person by name or tolerance to shake and shout, derived from the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale,3–5  as seen in table 1. For the assessment of the balance between nociception and antinociception, one can use the relationship between movement in response to a tetanic stimulus and the combined hypnotic–analgesic drug concentrations, expressed as tolerance to tetanic stimulus.6–8 
Table 1.
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale×
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Table 1.
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale×
×
Anesthetic drug effects between and within individuals can also be quantified using processed, electroencephalographic-derived indices.9  The Patient State Index (Masimo, USA) is such an index and is calculated by a proprietary algorithm based on a combination of quantitative electroencephalographic parameters and recorded from a four-channel frontal electroencephalographic monitor (SedLine; Masimo).10–14  Patient State Index values range between 100 (awake condition) and 0 (full suppression of electroencephalography), with a recommended target range between 25 and 50 for surgical anesthesia conditions. Patient State Index-1 has been clinically available for many years10  and has been described in various studies.10–15  Like most conventional electroencephalographic-based depth of anesthesia monitors, Patient State Index-1 suffers from intermittent electromyographic noise that interferes with the electroencephalography, leading to the need to limit the electroencephalographic frequency band of interest during index calculations,16–18  difficulty in calculating an index value with low-power electroencephalography, and significant index variability at baseline that limits the interpretation of the effects of low drug concentrations.19,20  Recently, a new generation of the Patient State Index (Patient State Index-2) was introduced to deal with limitations of Patient State Index-1 and characterize electroencephalographic behavior in many different frequency bands. During online electroencephalographic signal processing, raw electroencephalographic waves from the four frontal channels are captured independently, and parallel signal processing engines are applied to compute an electroencephalographic-derived parameter including Patient State Index that is less influenced by electromyography. Additionally, adaptive signal processing with band-independent features empowers the algorithm during periods of low-power electroencephalography.21 
The aim of this four-period randomized sequence crossover study was to describe the concentration–effect relationship of four different anesthetic regimens, being propofol and sevoflurane with and without remifentanil coadministration, as measured by no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation and by two different versions of the Patient State Index. To eliminate potential sources of interindividual variability caused by differences in brain structures, each participant was submitted to all drug combinations. The ability of the Patient State Index to predict different levels of responsiveness was also investigated. In addition, we compared the behavior of the Patient State Index-1 versus the new Patient State Index-2.
Materials and Methods
Study Design
For this study, data from a previously published trial,22  registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02043938) and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen (NL43238.042.13) were reanalyzed. The specific details of the clinical study are described in full elsewhere.22  This manuscript adheres to the applicable Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines.
In brief, 36 healthy volunteers (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I), stratified by age, sex, and remifentanil concentration (table 1 of the Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/ALN/C53) were included. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before inclusion. Exclusion criteria were weight less than 70% or more than 130% of ideal body weight, pregnancy, neurologic disorder, diseases involving the cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastric, and endocrinologic system or recent use of psychoactive medication or intake of more than 20 g of alcohol daily.
Each volunteer was scheduled to receive four sessions of anesthesia with different drug combinations in a random order, with an interval of at least 1 week between sessions. Randomization was performed before each session by drawing a sealed envelope. Any volunteer withdrawing from the study before finishing all sessions was replaced by a newly recruited volunteer. The four sessions were named “propofol,” “sevoflurane,” “remifentanil with step-dose propofol,” and “remifentanil with step-dose sevoflurane.”
An arterial line for blood sampling was placed before any drug was administered. Propofol and remifentanil were administered through an intravenous line by a Fresenius Base Primea docking station (Fresenius-Kabi, Germany) carrying two Fresenius module dynamic pressure system pumps, controlled by RUGLOOPII software (Demed, Belgium). RUGLOOPII steers the pumps and their infusion rates as target-controlled infusions to achieve desired target concentrations using pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models consisting of three-compartment pharmacokinetic models linked to an effect site compartments. For propofol, the effect-site concentration was predicted by the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model of Schnider et al.23,24  For remifentanil, the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model published by Minto et al.25,26  was used to predict the effect-site concentration. Sevoflurane was titrated using the closed-loop algorithm of the Zeus ventilator (software version 4.03.35; Dräger Medical, Germany) to target and maintain a constant end-tidal sevoflurane concentration over time.
Each session followed an identical titration procedure. After 2 min of baseline monitoring, a stepwise infusion of anesthetic drugs was administered. For the propofol group, the initial effect-site concentration was set to 0.5 µg · ml−1 followed by consecutive steps to target concentrations of 1, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 6, and 7.5 µg · ml−1. For the sevoflurane group, the initial end-tidal sevoflurane concentration was set to 0.2 vol % followed by consecutive end-tidal sevoflurane concentration of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4, and 4.5 vol %. After the predicted effect-site concentration for the propofol group or end-tidal sevoflurane concentration reached the target at each step, an equilibration time of 12 min was maintained to allow optimal equilibration between plasma or end-tidal concentration and the corresponding effect-site concentration. For the sessions with remifentanil, the same procedure was executed, although 2 min before propofol or sevoflurane was started, an effect-site concentration of 2 or 4 ng · ml−1 was targeted according to the stratification and maintained during the entire study.
After the 12 min of equilibration time, an additional minute of baseline electroencephalographic and hemodynamic measurements was maintained before assessing subject responsiveness using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (table 1). No response to calling the person by name corresponded to an Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of less than 3 and tolerance to shake and shout corresponded to a score of less than 2. For the analyses, response to the stimulus was considered as 0 and tolerance as 1. After assessing subject responsiveness, an arterial blood sample was obtained for analysis of plasma propofol and/or remifentanil concentrations.22,27  For sevoflurane, the measured end-tidal sevoflurane concentration at this steady-state condition was recorded. A graphical representation of the sequence of events can be found in the supplemental data of the original study.22  An electrical stimulus was applied for a maximum duration of 30 s, as described before,22  2 min after assessing subject responsiveness, and tolerance/motor responsiveness to tetanic stimulation was scored, again followed by 2 min to observe a possible response to the stimulus.
In each session, all volunteers started with spontaneous ventilation via a tight-fitting face mask connected to an anesthesia ventilator (Zeus, software version 4.03.35; Dräger Medical). End-tidal sevoflurane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen concentrations were monitored using the gas analyzer of the anesthesia ventilator.
When needed, respiratory support was applied to secure an unobstructed airway, adequate oxygenation (oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry of more than 92%), and CO2 (35 to 45 mmHg) homeostasis. Throughout the study, oxygen saturation (measured by pulse oximetry), electrocardiogram, and blood pressure (measured noninvasively at 1-min intervals using a Philips IntelliVue MP50 vital signs monitor, Philips Medizin Systeme, Germany) were monitored.
Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 were derived from post hoc running proprietary software (Masimo) and extracted from raw electroencephalographic-waveforms that were recorded throughout the study using a frontal bilateral electrode (SedLine Sensor; Masimo). The electrode was attached on the forehead according to the manufacturer’s guidelines and connected to a Masimo root monitor (model RDS-7; Masimo) running the SedLine brain function software (Masimo).
Pharmacodynamic Modeling
Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to study the relationship between measured concentrations, the two versions of the Patient State Index (Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2) and clinical endpoints (no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation). For continuous dependent variables (Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2), models were fitted to the data using the first-order conditional estimation routine in NONMEM (version 7.3; Icon Development Solutions, USA). For binary dependent variables (no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation), the LAPLACE estimation routine was used.
A sigmoid Emax model, as shown in equation 1, was used to describe the nonlinear relationship between Patient State Index (PSI) and the measured plasma propofol and end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations (C).
(1)
In this model, Patient State Index is related to the measured propofol or sevoflurane concentration according to a nonlinear function with γ defining the steepness of the concentration–effect relationship. PSI0 is the baseline Patient State Index when no drug is present and Emax is the maximum drug effect. The C50 is the concentration that produces 50% of the maximal drug effect. The two versions of the Patient State Index, being Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2, were modeled simultaneously.
For the clinical endpoints (no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation), the sigmoid Emax model described the probability of observing the respective clinical outcome. These probabilities are naturally bound between 0 and 1; hence the baseline term and the Emax term in equation 1 were a priori forced to 0 and 1. In these models C50 and Patient State Index50 denote the concentration or the Patient State Index value corresponding to a 50% probability of observing the clinical outcome measure.
Interindividual variability around the population typical parameters was assumed according to a multivariate log normal distribution with mean 0 and variances ω2. Correlations between off-diagonal elements were explored. For continuous dependent variables, residual unexplained variability was described using additive error models.
Accounting for the Hypnotic–Opioid Interaction
In our analysis we assumed that differences existed between the remifentanil groups (0, 2 and 4 ng · ml−1). To account for these differences, we introduced an interaction term on the C50 and the Patient State Index50. Equations 2 and 3 illustrate the parameterization for the interaction on C50 (the same parameterization applies in the case of Patient State Index50).
(2)
(3)
In these equations, θ1 and θ2 are 0 for all volunteers not receiving remifentanil. θ1 denotes the proportional difference in C50 between the 0 and 2 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups. θ2 denotes the proportional difference in C50 between the 2 and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups. Both θ1 and θ2 are estimated from the data. In case there is a (strong) influence of remifentanil on the C50 or Patient State Index50, the estimate for θ1 will be significantly different from 0. Moreover, if the influence is different between the volunteers in the 4 ng · ml−1 and those in 2 ng · ml−1 group, θ2 will be significantly higher than 0.
Testing for Differences between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2
We tested for potential differences in the estimated parameters derived for both Patient State Index algorithms. Therefore, as shown in equation 4, additional parameters were added to the model. This doubles the number of parameters to be estimated.
(4)
In equation 4, a population typical parameter (TV), such as Emax, C50, Patient State Index50, etc., was composed of a parameter denoting the estimate for the Patient State Index-2 model (TVPSI-2) and a parameter describing the proportional difference in the estimate when switching from Patient State Index-2 to Patient State Index-1 (θΔPSI). A θΔPSI significantly different from 0 indicates a difference between the two versions of the Patient State Index algorithm for that particular estimated parameter.
General Modeling Strategy
First, a full model was constructed. This model accounted for the hypnotic–opioid interaction as described under “Accounting for the Hypnotic–Opioid Interaction.” For the pharmacodynamic models for Patient State Index, the full model also included additional terms to quantify the difference in model parameters between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2, as described under “Testing for Differences between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2.” Next, this saturated model was simplified by removing nonsignificant parameters. An increase of the objective function value of less than 3.84, corresponding to a value of P < 0.05, was considered nonsignificant and led to the removal of the tested parameter.
All models were fitted to the data using PsN28  and Pirana29  as back and/or front end to NONMEM. The numerical and graphical assessment of the goodness of fit was conducted in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria).
Statistical Analysis
To determine an appropriate sample size, the sample of 36 volunteers was based on previous expertise in pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling in our group and what has been used by others in similar study conditions considering the population variability on age and sex. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 unless stated otherwise. All model parameters are reported as typical values with associated relative standard errors.
Results
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flow diagram of the screening and inclusion methodology of the 36 healthy volunteers included in the analysis is provided elsewhere.22  In total, 107 volunteers were assessed for eligibility. Of these 107 volunteers, 20 did not meet the inclusion criteria, 17 declined to participate, and 2 were excluded for other reasons, leaving 68 volunteers confirmed to be eligible. Of these 68 volunteers, 44 were allocated to the intervention, but 8 discontinued it because of the commitment/load of the four sessions. In total, 36 volunteers completed the study and were analyzed. There were no missing data from these 36 volunteers. The subject demographics are shown in table 2 of the Supplemental Digital Content (http://links.lww.com/ALN/C53).
In total, 891 no response to calling the person by name/tolerance to shake and shout and 781 tolerance to tetanic stimulation observations were included in the analysis. Measured arterial propofol and remifentanil concentrations and end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations were used as surrogates for their respective effect-site concentrations in the analysis. In total, 655 arterial blood samples were drawn during the stepwise titration procedure. From these samples, 451 propofol and 204 remifentanil concentrations were measured. From the continuously measured end-tidal sevoflurane concentration, only those exactly matching the timing of the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale and tolerance to tetanic stimulation observations were retained in the dataset, constituting a total of 440 measurements.
Relation between No Response to Calling the Person by Name, Tolerance to Shake and Shout, Tolerance to Tetanic Stimulation, and Propofol or Sevoflurane Concentrations
Figure 1 shows the raw data of the steady-state, measured plasma propofol and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration versus the no observed response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulus. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the measured concentrations in the different groups. The predicted probability of achieving no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation at a specific steady-state, measured plasma propofol and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration in the absence or presence of a specific effect-site concentration (remifentanil) is shown in figure 2. Table 2 describes the parameter estimates (and associated relative standard errors) for the pharmacodynamic model shown in figure 2 relating no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation to the steady-state, measured plasma propofol (in µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations (in vol %) and the influence of remifentanil 2 ng · ml−11) and 4 ng · ml−12) on the estimated C50 values. In the propofol + 2 ng · ml−1 remifentanil group, we found 32.7% (relative standard error, 20.5%), 28.0% (relative standard error, 15.1%), and 72.2% (relative standard error, 7.0%) decreases in the C50 for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, respectively, whereas a target effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 4 ng · ml−1 led to decreases in the C50 of 66.3% (relative standard error, 49.6%), 84.1% (relative standard error, 27.7%), and 22.4% (relative standard error, 36.6%) for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, respectively. In contrast to the results for propofol, the addition of remifentanil 2 or 4 ng · ml−1 did not significantly affect the C50 for no response to calling the person by name during sevoflurane anesthesia. For tolerance to shake and shout and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, effect-site concentration (remifentanil) 2 ng · ml−1 decreased the C50 26.4% (relative standard error, 21.1%) and 56.0% (relative standard error, 10.6%), respectively. Adding more remifentanil did not alter these C50 values for sevoflurane further. Table 2 also shows the interindividual variability for the various C50 values and the correlation between the C50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation when giving propofol or sevoflurane. During model building, it was found that the interindividual variability around the population typical C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were highly correlated within an individual for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout, as represented by the value of 1 in table 2. Simplification of the random effects model to a single interindividual variability term for both propofol and sevoflurane lead to a nonsignificant increase in the model’s objective function value, being +0.9 and +2.9 for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout, respectively. On the other hand, for tolerance to tetanic stimulation, we found that interindividual variability in C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were independent within an individual. Removal of the correlation coefficient (ρC50) had a marginal impact on the model’s goodness of fit (ΔOFV +2.9).
Table 2.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Table 2.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
×
Fig. 1.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Fig. 1.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
×
Fig. 2.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Fig. 2.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
×
Relation between Patient State Index-1 or Patient State Index-2 and Propofol or Sevoflurane Concentrations
The pharmacodynamic relationship between the two versions of Patient State Index for each volunteer and the steady-state, measured plasma propofol and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for each effect-site concentration (remifentanil) coadministration are shown in figure 3. The two left columns show the individual responses for Patient State Index-1 (dark gray) or Patient State Index-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth to the data (in blue for Patient State Index-1 or red for Patient State Index-2). For all propofol groups, increasing propofol concentrations resulted in a monotonically decreasing Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2. For sevoflurane, a clear paradoxical response is observed at higher concentrations for Patient State Index-1. The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for Patient State Index-1 (dark gray) or Patient State Index-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for Patient State Index-1 or red for Patient State Index-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model. The biphasic response at higher sevoflurane concentrations results in a difference between the pharmacodynamic models for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2. No differences for propofol are observed. Table 3 lists the parameter estimates (and associated relative standard errors) for the pharmacodynamic models for the Patient State Index-2 and Patient State Index-1 related to the steady-state, measured plasma propofol (in µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (in vol %; C) and the influence of remifentanil 2 ng · ml−11) and 4 ng · ml−12) on the estimated C50 values. For propofol, the estimated drug effect parameters were not significantly different between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2. In contrast, for sevoflurane, significant differences in the estimated drug effect parameters were obtained for Emax and γ. The Emax of Patient State Index-1 was 15.2% (relative standard error, 17.1%) lower than the Emax of Patient State Index-2. The γ of Patient State Index-1 was 42.2% (relative standard error, 57.4%) higher than that of Patient State Index-2. At baseline (in the awake state), the Patient State Index-1 has a higher interindividual variability and has a higher overall residual unexplained variability than Patient State Index-2. The ability of Patient State Index-2 to detect the interaction between hypnotics and opioids is not affected compared with Patient State Index-1. The addition of remifentanil lowered the C50 of propofol significantly for both models to a similar degree. In the propofol + 2 ng · ml−1 remifentanil group, we found a 13.5% (relative standard error, 20.8%) decrease in the C50 (from 1.63 to 1.41µg · ml−1), whereas a target effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 4 ng · ml−1 led to a decrease in the C50 of 81.6% (relative standard error, 62.3%). In contrast to the results for propofol, the addition of remifentanil 2 or 4 ng · ml−1 did not significantly affect the C50 of sevoflurane (1.22 vol %) in both Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 models.
Table 3.
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Table 3.
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
×
Fig. 3.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
Fig. 3.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
×
Relation between Patient State Index-2 and No Response to Calling the Person by Name, Tolerance to Shake and Shout, and Tolerance to Tetanic Stimulation for Propofol and Sevoflurane
During model building and using a likelihood ratio test at the 5% level of significance, the estimated model parameters for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 as predictors for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation were indistinguishable. Consequently, both Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 result in indistinguishable box plots in figure 4, curves in figure 5, and parameter estimates in table 4. As such, only Patient State Index-2 results are shown. Figure 4 shows the raw data of the observed Patient State Index-2 versus the no observed response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulus. Box plots are used to show the distribution of Patient State Index-2 in the different groups. The predicted probability of achieving no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation at a specific Patient State Index-2 in the absence or presence of a specific effect-site concentration (remifentanil) is shown in figure 5. Table 4 describes the parameter estimates for the pharmacodynamic model shown in figure 4 relating no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation to Patient State Index-2 and the influence of remifentanil 2 ng · ml−11) and 4 ng · ml−12) on the estimated Patient State Index50 values. For no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, a significant decrease in Patient State Index50 was found when coadministering an effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 2 ng · ml−1 with propofol or sevoflurane. Patient State Index50 only decreased further at effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 4 ng · ml−1 for tolerance to shake and shout and tolerance to tetanic stimulation during propofol administration. Table 4 also shows the interindividual variability for the various Patient State Index50 values and the correlation between the Patient State Index50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation within an individual when giving propofol or sevoflurane. During model building, it was found that within an individual, Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were moderately correlated, as represented by the values of 0.65 and 0.58. In contrast, for tolerance to tetanic stimulation, we found that Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane were independent within an individual.
Table 4.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model×
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−1 (θ1) and 4 ng·ml−1 (θ2) on the Model
Table 4.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model×
×
Fig. 4.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Fig. 4.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
×
Fig. 5.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Fig. 5.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
×
Discussion
Because in this trial the same group of volunteers received four different anesthetic regimens in steady-state conditions, our results offer a unique possibility to directly compare the pharmacodynamics of propofol versus sevoflurane with and without remifentanil coadministration at both a population and an individual level.
Relation between No Response to Calling the Person by Name, Tolerance to Shake and Shout, Tolerance to Tetanic Stimulation, and Propofol or Sevoflurane Concentrations
The pharmacodynamic relation between no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, tolerance to tetanic stimulation, and the steady-state, measured plasma propofol or end-tidal sevoflurane concentration could be described by a classical nonlinear relation. The model parameter values are in agreement with others for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout but mostly lower than others for tolerance to tetanic stimulation.7,30–32  However, comparing our C50 values with those from other studies is not that relevant, because the results are influenced by observer differences for clinical scores and differences in device and stimulation characteristics for tolerance to tetanic stimulation. Because we used a crossover design, it is much more interesting to quantify the ratio between C50 values for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation between propofol and sevoflurane (without remifentanil), being 1.62 µg · ml−1/0.64 vol %, 1.85 µg · ml−1/0.90 vol %, and 2.82 µg · ml−1/0.91 vol %, respectively. As an example using tolerance to shake and shout, this means that a clinician can expect tolerance to shake and shout in 50% of his patients when titrating a propofol steady-state concentration of 1.85 µg · ml−1 or a steady-state end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane of 0.90 vol %, resulting in ratio of 2.05. This also means that a clinician titrating the propofol effect at a steady-state concentration of 1.85 µg · ml−1 can theoretically produce a similar hypnotic effect as measured with tolerance to shake and shout when switching to a sevoflurane steady-state concentration of 0.90 vol %. As such, these values become clinically useful to help the clinician optimizing drug titration when switching between propofol and sevoflurane. Our propofol and sevoflurane ratios are close to the observations made by Schumacher et al.7  when studying the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane, being 2.05 and 3.09 for tolerance to shake and shout and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, respectively.
Because of the absence of analgesic properties for propofol, we found a difference between propofol and sevoflurane in the influence of remifentanil on the C50 values for the various clinical endpoints. For propofol, significant decreases in the propofol C50 for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation were found at increasing effect-site concentration (remifentanil) as also found by Kern et al.30  For sevoflurane, the influence of remifentanil on the sevoflurane C50 values was variable, ranging from no influence for no response to calling the person by name to an effect of effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 2 ng · ml−1 for tolerance to shake and shout and tolerance to tetanic stimulation without an additional effect when increasing effect-site concentration (remifentanil) to 4 ng · ml−1. Heyse et al.32  studied the interaction between sevoflurane and remifentanil and also found differences in the synergy between various clinical endpoints. In addition, Heyse et al.32  showed that above a effect-site concentration (remifentanil) of 4 ng · ml−1, the interaction no longer increases.
Relation between Patient State Index-1 or Patient State Index-2 and Propofol or Sevoflurane Concentrations
As shown in figure 3, both Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 decreased with increasing measured plasma propofol or end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations. For propofol, we found no significant differences between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 in the model parameters of the concentration–effect relationship, independent of the addition of remifentanil. In contrast, for sevoflurane with or without remifentanil, we found an improved monotonic relationship of the concentration–effect curve for Patient State Index-2 compared with Patient State Index-1. This was also reflected in a significant difference between Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 in two model parameters, Emax and γ, even though the C50 values were similar for both indices. In combination with the decreased variability for Patient State Index-2 at baseline (suggesting a better signal-to-noise ratio in awake individuals), our findings indicate that Patient State Index-2 has improved characteristics to serve as a continuous pharmacodynamic measure of cortical electrical activity during both propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia. Paradoxical increases, especially during administration of higher concentrations of inhaled anesthetics, have been described before and must be taken into consideration during processed electroencephalographic algorithm development to avoid incorrect anesthetic management under electroencephalographic monitoring.33–35 
We are aware of only two articles that have used pharmacodynamic modeling to compare the concentration–effect relationship between propofol or sevoflurane and the Patient State Index-1. Soehle et al.13,14  obtained C50 values of 1.38 μg · ml−1 and 0.77 vol % for propofol and sevoflurane, respectively, which are considerably lower for sevoflurane compared with our C50 values; the difference is probably related to differences in sample selection and methodology. More relevant and similar to the clinical endpoints, we compared C50 values for both Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 between propofol and sevoflurane in the same sample of volunteers on both a population and an individual level.
Relation between Patient State Index-2 and No Response to Calling the Person by Name, Tolerance to Shake and Shout, and Tolerance to Tetanic Stimulation for Propofol and Sevoflurane
We found indistinguishable results in the model parameters for Patient State Index-1 and Patient State Index-2 in relation to no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation, and as such, we only present results for Patient State Index-2. Although improvements in concentration–effect relationship for Patient State Index-2 were observed, particularly for sevoflurane, this did not influence the correlation between Patient State Index and no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation. Therefore, no adaptation is required for the clinician when switching to the new Patient State Index-2. Moreover, it seems that our results do not invalidate earlier publications on the relation between Patient State Index and clinical endpoints.10–15 
The relationships between Patient State Index-2 and the three clinical endpoints show some fundamental clinical differences between propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia. The Patient State Index-2 values associated with 50% probability (Patient State Index50) of no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation are significantly higher for sevoflurane than propofol. Adding remifentanil 2 ng · ml−1 increased all Patient State Index50 values significantly. However higher effect-site concentration (remifentanil) values showed an additional effect for tolerance to shake and shout and tolerance to tetanic stimulation only during propofol administration. When maintaining a Patient State Index-2 within the range of 25 to 50 as recommended by the company for general anesthesia, there was still a significant risk that the patient could be responsive to one of the clinical endpoints during propofol administration even in the presence of remifentanil. Based on our findings presented in figure 5 and table 4, we recommend lowering the upper range limit towards a Patient State Index-2 value of 35 to maintain a safe level of the hypnotic component of anesthesia when using propofol. When using sevoflurane, the recommended Patient State Index-2 range of 50 to 25 is sufficient to ensure a high probability for the hypnotic endpoints no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout. The significant difference in Patient State Index50 for tolerance to tetanic stimulation between propofol and sevoflurane also reflects the much higher intrinsic immobilizing capacity of sevoflurane compared with propofol.36,37  To obtain a similar probability of immobility to noxious stimulus, propofol should inhibit the cortical electrical activity to a much larger extent compared with sevoflurane and therefore requires a higher concentration of propofol, resulting in more electroencephalographic suppression and lower Patient State Index-2 values. The addition of a sufficiently effective concentration of remifentanil during propofol anesthesia is mandatory to ensure immobility after a noxious stimulus.
Originally, Patient State Index-1 was presented as a drug-independent representation of electroencephalographic suppression by some authors.12,38  Our study clearly indicates that the Patient State Index-2 needs to be interpreted differently depending on the anesthetic drugs used, as suggested by Purdon et al.39  and Schneider et al.40 
Interindividual Variability around C50
Because our study allows direct comparisons between propofol and sevoflurane, we studied variability in C50 values and Patient State Index50 values within an individual during propofol and sevoflurane administration in the absence or presence of remifentanil. We found that within an individual, C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane are perfectly correlated (ρC50 = 1) for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout. This means that an individual having a higher or lower C50 for propofol versus the population typical value also has a higher or lower C50 value for sevoflurane. At the same time, this means that the ratio of C50 values for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout between propofol and sevoflurane is identical for all individuals and equal to the population ratios of 1.62 µg · ml−1/0.64 vol %, and 1.85 µg · ml−1/0.90 vol %, respectively.
We also showed that C50 values for propofol and sevoflurane for Patient State Index-1 (ρC50 = 0.69) and Patient State Index-2 (ρC50 = 0.54) and Patient State Index50 values for no response to calling the person by name (ρC50 = 0.65) and tolerance to shake and shout (ρC50 = 0.58) are positively correlated. This means that, on average, individuals having a higher or lower C50 or Patient State Index50 for propofol also have a higher or lower C50 or Patient State Index50 for sevoflurane. A consequence of the correlation coefficient being less than 1 is that the population typical ratio does not apply to all individuals and that some interindividual variability exists in the ratios. For example, for Patient State Index-2 the population typical ratio is 1.63 µg · ml−1/1.22 vol % with individual (post hoc) ratios ranging from 0.85 µg · ml−1/1.22 vol % to 2.06 µg · ml−1/1.30 vol %. Similarly, the population typical ratio of Patient State Index50 values for Patient State Index-2 was 0.69 with individual ratios ranging from 0.55 to 0.75 for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout, respectively.
Interestingly, no correlation between C50 values and Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane was found for tolerance to tetanic stimulation. This means that an individual having a higher C50 for propofol (compared with the population typical value) has an equal probability of having a higher or lower C50 for sevoflurane. Consequently, individual ratios vary considerably from the population typical ratios of C50 and Patient State Index50. The population typical ratios of C50 and Patient State Index50 are 2.82 µg · ml−1/0.91 vol % and 0.48 and individual ratios range from 0.91 µg · ml−1/0.81 vol % to 5.13 µg · ml−1/0.92 vol % and from 0.22 to 0.84. These correlations between post hoc C50 and Patient State Index50 values for propofol and sevoflurane for these hypnotic-related, clinical, and electroencephalographic endpoints, but not for the spinal reaction-related tolerance to tetanic stimulation, are exciting and might offer new insights into mechanisms of action for sevoflurane versus propofol.41,42 
A limitation of our modeling approach is that we used the predicted effect-site concentrations of remifentanil instead of the measured concentrations. As such, the between-subject variability in the measured concentrations is not considered. Although parameter estimates on the group level are likely unbiased, this approach could possibly have confounded the estimates for the correlations between the C50 values and Patient State Index50 values. Nevertheless, in our opinion this approach is justified because we did not aim at building a surface-response model, and considering the between-subject variability in the measured concentrations would only increase the complexity of the analysis without leading to different conclusions with respect to the pharmacodynamics of propofol and sevoflurane for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, tolerance to tetanic stimulation, and Patient State Index.
Conclusions
The pharmacodynamics for propofol and sevoflurane with and without remifentanil coadministration were described on both population and individual levels using clinical scores and Patient State Index. We observed that the interindividual variability around the population typical C50 values and Patient State Index50 during propofol and sevoflurane administration were significantly correlated within an individual for no response to calling the person by name and tolerance to shake and shout, but not for tolerance to tetanic stimulation. Patient State Index-2 has an improved monotonic concentration–effect relationship and descriptive performance at higher sevoflurane concentrations compared with Patient State Index-1. Finally, the probability of responsiveness for no response to calling the person by name, tolerance to shake and shout, and tolerance to tetanic stimulation as a function of Patient State Index is drug- and drug combination–specific but is not affected by the version of Patient State Index used.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the assistance of R. Spanjersberg, R.N., University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, and A. R. Absalom, M.B.Ch.B., F.R.C.A., M.D., University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Research Support
Supported in part by Masimo (Irvine, California) and in part by departmental and institutional funding.
Competing Interests
Dr. Reyntjens is a member of the Key Opinion Leader group on patient warming and received funding for travel and lectures of the 37°Company (Amersfoort, The Netherlands). Dr. Touw serves as editor for the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and of Clinical Pharmacokinetics. Dr. Struys’s department received grants and funding from The Medicines Company (Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey), Masimo (Irvine, California), Fresenius (Bad Homburg, Germany), Acacia Design (Maastricht, The Netherlands), and Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland); received honoraria from The Medicines Company, Masimo, Fresenius, Baxter (Deerfield, Illinois), Medtronic, and Demed Medical (Temse, Belgium); and serves as a director and editorial board member of the British Journal of Anesthesia. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Reproducible Science
Full protocol available at: m.h.kuizenga@umcg.nl. Raw data available at: m.h.kuizenga@umcg.nl.
References
Glass, PS . Anesthetic drug interactions: An insight into general anesthesia: Its mechanism and dosing strategies. Anesthesiology. 1998; 88:5–6 [Article] [PubMed]
Struys, MM, Sahinovic, M, Lichtenbelt, BJ, Vereecke, HE, Absalom, AR . Optimizing intravenous drug administration by applying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic concepts. Br J Anaesth. 2011; 107:38–47 [Article] [PubMed]
Chernik, DA, Gillings, D, Laine, H, Hendler, J, Silver, JM, Davidson, AB, Schwam, EM, Siegel, JL . Validity and reliability of the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: Study with intravenous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1990; 10:244–51 [Article] [PubMed]
Bruhn, J, Bouillon, TW, Radulescu, L, Hoeft, A, Bertaccini, E, Shafer, SL . Correlation of approximate entropy, Bispectral Index, and spectral edge frequency 95 (SEF95) with clinical signs of “anesthetic depth” during coadministration of propofol and remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 2003; 98:621–7 [Article] [PubMed]
Bouillon, TW, Bruhn, J, Radulescu, L, Andresen, C, Shafer, TJ, Cohane, C, Shafer, SL . Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil regarding hypnosis, tolerance of laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index, and electroencephalographic approximate entropy. Anesthesiology. 2004; 100:1353–72 [Article] [PubMed]
Rantanen, M, Yppärilä-Wolters, H, van Gils, M, Yli-Hankala, A, Huiku, M, Kymäläinen, M, Korhonen, I . Tetanic stimulus of ulnar nerve as a predictor of heart rate response to skin incision in propofol remifentanil anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2007; 99:509–13 [Article] [PubMed]
Schumacher, PM, Dossche, J, Mortier, EP, Luginbuehl, M, Bouillon, TW, Struys, MM . Response surface modeling of the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane. Anesthesiology. 2009; 111:790–804 [Article] [PubMed]
Kim, TK, Niklewski, PJ, Martin, JF, Obara, S, Egan, TD . Enhancing a sedation score to include truly noxious stimulation: The Extended Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (EOAA/S). Br J Anaesth. 2015; 115:569–77 [Article] [PubMed]
Fahy, BG, Chau, DF . The technology of processed electroencephalogram monitoring devices for assessment of depth of anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2018; 126:111–7 [Article] [PubMed]
Drover, DR, Lemmens, HJ, Pierce, ET, Plourde, G, Loyd, G, Ornstein, E, Prichep, LS, Chabot, RJ, Gugino, L . Patient State Index: Titration of delivery and recovery from propofol, alfentanil, and nitrous oxide anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2002; 97:82–9 [Article] [PubMed]
Prichep, LS, Gugino, LD, John, ER, Chabot, RJ, Howard, B, Merkin, H, Tom, ML, Wolter, S, Rausch, L, Kox, WJ . The Patient State Index as an indicator of the level of hypnosis under general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2004; 92:393–9 [Article] [PubMed]
Drover, D, Ortega, HR . Patient State Index. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006; 20:121–8 [Article] [PubMed]
Soehle, M, Kuech, M, Grube, M, Wirz, S, Kreuer, S, Hoeft, A, Bruhn, J, Ellerkmann, RK . Patient State Index vs. Bispectral Index as measures of the electroencephalographic effects of propofol. Br J Anaesth. 2010; 105:172–8 [Article] [PubMed]
Soehle, M, Ellerkmann, RK, Grube, M, Kuech, M, Wirz, S, Hoeft, A, Bruhn, J . Comparison between Bispectral Index and Patient State Index as measures of the electroencephalographic effects of sevoflurane. Anesthesiology. 2008; 109:799–805 [Article] [PubMed]
Lee, KH, Kim, YH, Sung, YJ, Oh, MK . The Patient State Index is well balanced for propofol sedation. Hippokratia. 2015; 19:235–8 [PubMed]
Nasraway, SSJr., Wu, EC, Kelleher, RM, Yasuda, CM, Donnelly, AM . How reliable is the Bispectral Index in critically ill patients?: A prospective, comparative, single-blinded observer study. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30:1483–7 [Article] [PubMed]
Borjian Boroojeny, S . The effect of facial muscle contractions on the cerebral state index in an ICU patient: A case report. Cases J. 2008; 1:167 [Article] [PubMed]
Aho, AJ, Kamata, K, Yli-Hankala, A, Lyytikäinen, LP, Kulkas, A, Jäntti, V . Elevated BIS and Entropy values after sugammadex or neostigmine: An electroencephalographic or electromyographic phenomenon? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012; 56:465–73 [Article] [PubMed]
Bruhn, J, Bouillon, TW, Hoeft, A, Shafer, SL . Artifact robustness, inter- and intraindividual baseline stability, and rational EEG parameter selection. Anesthesiology. 2002; 96:54–9 [Article] [PubMed]
Vereecke, HE, Vasquez, PM, Jensen, EW, Thas, O, Vandenbroecke, R, Mortier, EP, Struys, MM . New composite index based on midlatency auditory evoked potential and electroencephalographic parameters to optimize correlation with propofol effect site concentration: Comparison with Bispectral Index and solitary used fast extracting auditory evoked potential index. Anesthesiology. 2005; 103:500–7 [Article] [PubMed]
Next Generation SedLine® Brain Function Monitoring. Available at: http://www.masimo.com/products/continuous/root/root-sedline/. Accessed April 26, 2019.
Kuizenga, MH, Colin, PJ, Reyntjens, KMEM, Touw, DJ, Nalbat, H, Knotnerus, FH, Vereecke, HEM, Struys, MMRF . Test of neural inertia in humans during general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120:525–36 [Article] [PubMed]
Schnider, TW, Minto, CF, Gambus, PL, Andresen, C, Goodale, DB, Shafer, SL, Youngs, EJ . The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1998; 88:1170–82 [Article] [PubMed]
Schnider, TW, Minto, CF, Shafer, SL, Gambus, PL, Andresen, C, Goodale, DB, Youngs, EJ . The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology. 1999; 90:1502–16 [Article] [PubMed]
Minto, CF, Schnider, TW, Egan, TD, Youngs, E, Lemmens, HJ, Gambus, PL, Billard, V, Hoke, JF, Moore, KH, Hermann, DJ, Muir, KT, Mandema, JW, Shafer, SL . Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil: I. Model development. Anesthesiology. 1997; 86:10–23 [Article] [PubMed]
Minto, CF, Schnider, TW, Shafer, SL . Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil: II. Model application. Anesthesiology. 1997; 86:24–33 [Article] [PubMed]
Koster, RA, Vereecke, HE, Greijdanus, B, Touw, DJ, Struys, MM, Alffenaar, JW . Analysis of remifentanil with liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry and an extensive stability investigation in EDTA whole blood and acidified EDTA plasma. Anesth Analg. 2015; 120:1235–41 [Article] [PubMed]
Lindbom, L, Pihlgren, P, Jonsson, EN, Jonsson, N . PsN-Toolkit: A collection of computer intensive statistical methods for non-linear mixed effect modeling using NONMEM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2005; 79:241–57 [Article] [PubMed]
Keizer, RJ, van Benten, M, Beijnen, JH, Schellens, JH, Huitema, AD . Piraña and PCluster: A modeling environment and cluster infrastructure for NONMEM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011; 101:72–9 [Article] [PubMed]
Kern, SE, Xie, G, White, JL, Egan, TD . A response surface analysis of propofol-remifentanil pharmacodynamic interaction in volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2004; 100:1373–81 [Article] [PubMed]
Johnson, KB, Syroid, ND, Gupta, DK, Manyam, SC, Egan, TD, Huntington, J, White, JL, Tyler, D, Westenskow, DR . An evaluation of remifentanil propofol response surfaces for loss of responsiveness, loss of response to surrogates of painful stimuli and laryngoscopy in patients undergoing elective surgery. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106:471–9 [Article] [PubMed]
Heyse, B, Proost, JH, Schumacher, PM, Bouillon, TW, Vereecke, HE, Eleveld, DJ, Luginbühl, M, Struys, MM . Sevoflurane remifentanil interaction: Comparison of different response surface models. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116:311–23 [Article] [PubMed]
Litscher, G, Schwarz, G . Is there paradoxical arousal reaction in the EEG subdelta range in patients during anesthesia? J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1999; 11:49–52 [Article] [PubMed]
Andrzejowski, J, Sleigh, J . Increasing isoflurane concentration may cause paradoxical increases in the EEG Bispectral Index in surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 85:171–2 [PubMed]
Detsch, O, Schneider, G, Kochs, E, Hapfelmeier, G, Werner, C . Increasing isoflurane concentration may cause paradoxical increases in the EEG Bispectral Index in surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84:33–7 [Article] [PubMed]
Antognini, JF, Carstens, E . In vivo characterization of clinical anaesthesia and its components. Br J Anaesth. 2002; 89:156–66 [Article] [PubMed]
Rudolph, U, Antkowiak, B . Molecular and neuronal substrates for general anaesthetics. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004; 5:709–20 [Article] [PubMed]
John, ER, Prichep, LS, Kox, W, Valdés-Sosa, P, Bosch-Bayard, J, Aubert, E, Tom, M, di Michele, F, Gugino, LD, diMichele, F . Invariant reversible QEEG effects of anesthetics. Conscious Cogn. 2001; 10:165–83 [Article] [PubMed]
Purdon, PL, Sampson, A, Pavone, KJ, Brown, EN . Clinical electroencephalography for anesthesiologists: Part I. Background and basic signatures. Anesthesiology. 2015; 123:937–60 [Article] [PubMed]
Schneider, G, Gelb, AW, Schmeller, B, Tschakert, R, Kochs, E . Detection of awareness in surgical patients with EEG-based indices: Bispectral Index and Patient State Index. Br J Anaesth. 2003; 91:329–35 [Article] [PubMed]
Khan, KS, Hayes, I, Buggy, D . Pharmacology of anaesthetic agents: II. Inhalation anaesthetic agents. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain. 2014; 14:106–11 [Article]
Tang, P, Eckenhoff, R . Recent progress on the molecular pharmacology of propofol. F1000Res. 2018; 7:123 [Article] [PubMed]
Fig. 1.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Fig. 1.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus observed response (defined as 0) or no response (defined as 1) to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Box plots are used to show measured concentrations in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
×
Fig. 2.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Fig. 2.
Steady-state, measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) and end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (vol %) versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS). Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups.
×
Fig. 3.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
Fig. 3.
Relationship between Patient State Index (PSI)-1 or PSI-2 and the steady-state measured plasma propofol (µg · ml−1) or end-tidal sevoflurane (vol %) concentration during various effect-compartment targeted remifentanil (ng · ml−1) coadministrations. The two left columns show the individual responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and a nonparametric smooth (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2). The two right columns show the individual post hoc expected responses for PSI-1 (dark gray) or PSI-2 (light gray) and the typical population expectation (in blue for PSI-1 or red for PSI-2) as calculated by NONMEM using the pharmacodynamic model.
×
Fig. 4.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
Fig. 4.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus no observed response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Box plots are used to show the distribution of the PSI-2 index in the different remifentanil groups. Individual observations are shown with circles and are scattered and offset against the y axis to increase visibility. Red, green, and blue are used for the 0, 2, and 4 ng · ml−1 remifentanil groups, respectively.
×
Fig. 5.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
Fig. 5.
Patient State Index (PSI)-2 versus predicted probabilities for no response to calling the person by name (NRCN), tolerance to shake and shout (TOSS), and tolerance to tetanic stimulation (TOTS) during propofol and sevoflurane administration. Solid red, solid green, and dashed blue lines are used for the predicted probabilities in the 0, 2, and 4 ng·ml−1 remifentanil groups.
×
Table 1.
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale×
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Table 1.
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale
Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale×
×
Table 2.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Table 2.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
×
Table 3.
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Table 3.
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model
Final Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Model for the PSI-2 and PSI-1 versus the Steady-state, Measured Plasma Propofol and End-tidal Sevoflurane Concentration and the Influence of Remifentanil on the Model×
×
Table 4.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model×
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−1 (θ1) and 4 ng·ml−1 (θ2) on the Model
Table 4.
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model
Parameter Estimates for the Pharmacodynamic Models Relating the NRCN, TOSS, and TOTS to PSI-2 and the Influence of Remifentanil 2 ng·ml−11) and 4 ng·ml−12) on the Model×
×