Differential effects of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia on left ventricular-arterial coupling in dogs.

BACKGROUND: General anesthetics interfere with arterial and ventricular mechanical properties, often altering left ventricular-arterial (LVA) coupling. We hypothesized that sevoflurane and propofol alter LVA coupling by different effects on arterial and ventricular properties. METHODS: Experiments were conducted in six anesthetized open-chest dogs for the measurement of left ventricular pressure and aortic pressure and flow. Measurements were performed during anesthesia with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration sevoflurane and 12, 24 and 36 mg/kg/h propofol. LVA coupling was assessed as the ratio of ventricular end-systolic elastance (E(es), measuring ventricular contractility) to effective arterial elastance (E(a), measuring ventricular afterload). The steady component of afterload, arterial tone, was assessed by systemic vascular resistance and arterial pressure-flow curves. The pulsatile component of afterload was assessed by aortic impedance and compliance. RESULTS: Sevoflurane decreased aortic pressure and cardiac output more than propofol. Sevoflurane reduced arterial tone, increased arterial stiffness and did not affect wave reflections. It increased E(a), decreased E(es) and reduced LVA coupling. Propofol reduced arterial tone, did not affect arterial stiffness and decreased wave reflections. It did not affect E(a), E(es) or LVA coupling. CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane increased ventricular afterload and decreased ventricular performance, thereby altering LVA coupling. Propofol did not affect ventricular afterload or ventricular performance, thereby preserving LVA coupling. Thus, propofol preserves LVA coupling in dogs better, and might be a better choice for patients with compromised left ventricular function.

Contractility in humans after coronary artery surgery.

BACKGROUND: Propofol's unique pharmacokinetic profile offers advantages for titration and rapid emergence in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, but concern for negative inotropic properties potentially limits its use in these patients. The current study analyzed the effect of various propofol plasma concentrations on left ventricular (LV) contractility by means of a single-beat contractile index based on LV maximal power (PWR(max)). METHODS: The study was conducted in 30 patients after CABG surgery. Immediately after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), four different plasma concentrations of propofol 0.65, 1.30, 1.95, and 2.60 microg/ml were established. At each concentration level, the cardiac and vascular effects of propofol were studied by combining echocardiographic data with invasively derived aortic root pressure. Preload was characterized by LV end-diastolic dimensions. Afterload was indicated in terms of indexed systemic vascular resistance (SVRI), LV end-systolic meridional wall stress (LV-ESWS), and arterial elastance (Ea). Quantification of effects on contractility was achieved by preload-adjusted PWRmax. RESULTS: Myocardial contractility did not change during a fourfold increase in propofol plasma concentration. Preload-adjusted PWRmax amounted to 3.90+/-1.75 W x ml(-2) x 10(4), 3.98+/-1.69, 3.94+/-1.70, and 3.88+/-1.72, respectively (mean+/-SD). With respect to ventricular loading conditions, propofol caused a significant reduction in both pre- and afterload. CONCLUSIONS: The current results strongly suggest that propofol lacks direct cardiac depressant effects. Nevertheless, meaningful vascular actions of propofol could be demonstrated. Significant decreases in ventricular loading conditions accounted for a marked decrease in arterial blood pressure and supported the concept that propofol in clinically relevant concentration is a vasodilator.

Systemic vascular effects of isoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in dogs.

Vascular effects of general anesthesia are usually described by changes in vascular resistance, which assumes a linear pressure-flow relationship passing through the zero-flow zero-pressure point, and neglects the pulsatile properties of the circulation. We compared the systemic vascular effects of isoflurane versus propofol anesthesia by measurements of aortic pressure-flow relationships, systemic vascular impedance (SVZ), and pressure transfer function (PTF). Eight mechanically ventilated dogs received isoflurane 1.4% end-tidal and propofol 18 mg.kg-1.h-1 in a random sequence. During both periods, pressure-flow data and SVZ data were obtained at baseline and after stepwise reduction of the cardiac output by inflation of a balloon in the inferior vena cava. Instantaneous pressure and flow were measured at the aortic root using a micromanometer-tipped catheter and an ultrasonic flow probe. Compared to baseline, low flow decreased the aortic pressure and increased the resistance, characteristic impedance, and oscillatory/total work ratio. Compared with isoflurane, propofol resulted in higher aortic pressure, lower characteristic impedance, and lower oscillatory/total work ratio. Low-frequency PTF moduli decreased at low flow and increased with propofol. We conclude that, compared with isoflurane, propofol better preserves aortic pressure and increases aortic compliance, and thus improves the energy transmission from the left ventricle to the arterial system.

Measurement of arterial pressure after cardiopulmonary bypass with long radial artery catheters.

Radial arterial pressure can significantly underestimate central aortic pressure in the postcardiopulmonary bypass (post-CPB) period. At the study institution, routine monitoring of perioperative arterial pressure in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery is performed with a long radial artery catheter with the distal end positioned in the subclavian artery. In 68 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery, both a conventional short radial artery catheter and a contralateral long radial artery catheter were placed. Analysis of radial and subclavian arterial pressures post-CPB in the first 47 patients showed average maximum differences of 7 mm Hg systolic and 4 mm Hg mean. In 15% of patients, the differences were clinically significant (greater than 20 mm Hg systolic and/or greater than 14 mm Hg mean). In 28 patients, central aortic pressure was measured post-CPB, and subclavian artery pressure was found to be an excellent estimator of central aortic pressure. There were no significant complications related to using long radial artery catheters in the 68 patients who were followed prospectively. Monitoring subclavian arterial pressure by percutaneous insertion of a long radial artery catheter provides a reliable estimation of central aortic pressure, even in patients with significant radial artery-to-central aortic pressure gradients post-CPB.