Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol 6% SAZN versus propofol 1% SAZN and Diprivan-10 for short-term sedation following coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: A new formulation of propofol 6% in Lipofundin MCT/LCT 10% (propofol 6% SAZN) has been developed in order to reduce the fat, emulsifier and volume load that is given during prolonged infusions of propofol. The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety characteristics of propofol 6% SAZN were investigated during a short-term infusion and compared with the commercially available product propofol 1% in Intralipid 10% (Diprivan-10) and propofol 1% in Lipofundin MCT/LCT 10% (propofol 1% SAZN). METHODS: In a randomised double-blind study, 24 male patients received a 5-h infusion of propofol at the rate of 1 mg/kg/h for sedation in the immediate postoperative period following coronary artery bypass surgery. RESULTS: The average pharmacokinetic parameter estimates of clearance (Cl), volume of distribution at steady state (Vd,ss), elimination half-life (t1/2,beta) and distribution half-life (t1/2,alpha) observed in the three groups were 28 +/- 1.1 ml/kg/min, 1.8 +/- 0.12 l/kg, 94 +/- 4.1 min and 3.1 +/- 0.26 min, respectively (mean +/- SEM, n = 24) and no significant differences were noted between the three formulations (P > 0.05). In one patient receiving propofol 6% SAZN, in two patients receiving propofol 1% SAZN and in three patients receiving Diprivan-10, the level of sedation was inadequate and additional sedative medication had to be given. In all other 18 patients, the level of sedation was adequate. The mean propofol concentration in these six inadequately sedated patients was lower than the adequately sedated patients (P = 0.015). The serum triglyceride concentrations were not significantly different between the groups studied. No adverse events occurred in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety characteristics of propofol 6% SAZN are in good agreement with those of the 1% formulations. Propofol 6% SAZN therefore provides a useful alternative to the commercially available 1% formulation for short-term sedation in the intensive care unit. Expected advantages in long-term sedation of the 6% over 1% formulation are the subject of an ongoing study.

Pharmacokinetics, induction of anaesthesia and safety characteristics of propofol 6% SAZN vs propofol 1% SAZN and Diprivan-10 after bolus injection.

AIMS: In order to avoid the potential for elevated serum lipid levels as a consequence of long term sedation with propofol, a formulation of propofol 6% in Lipofundin(R) MCT/LCT 10% (Propofol 6% SAZN) has been developed. The pharmacokinetics, induction of anaesthesia and safety characteristics of this new formulation were investigated after bolus injection and were compared with the commercially available product (propofol 1% in Intralipid(R) 10%, Diprivan-10) and propofol 1% in Lipofundin(R) MCT/LCT 10% (Propofol 1% SAZN). METHODS: In a randomised double-blind study, 24 unpremedicated female patients received an induction dose of propofol of 2.5 mg kg-1 over 60 s which was followed by standardized balanced anaesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive propofol as Propofol 6% SAZN, Propofol 1% SAZN or Diprivan-10. RESULTS: For all formulations the pharmacokinetics were adequately described by a tri-exponential equation, as the propofol concentrations collected early after the injection suggested an additional initial more rapid phase. The average values for clearance (CL), volume of distribution at steady-state (Vd,ss ), elimination half-life (t1/2,z ) and distribution half-life (t1/2, lambda2) observed in the three groups were 32+/-1.5 ml kg-1 min-1, 2. 0+/-0.18 l kg-1, 95+/-5.6 min and 3.4+/-0.20 min, respectively (mean+/-s.e.mean, n=24) and no significant differences were noted between the three formulations (P >0.05). The half-life of the additional initial distribution phase (t1/2,lambda1 ) in all subjects ranged from 0.1 to 0.6 min. Anaesthesia was induced successfully and uneventfully in all cases, and the quality of induction was adequate in all 24 patients. The induction time did not vary between the three formulations and the average induction time observed in the three groups was 51+/-1.3 s which corresponded to an induction dose of propofol of 2.1+/-0.06 mg kg-1 (mean+/-s.e. mean, n=24). The percentage of patients reporting any pain on injection did not vary between the formulations and was 17% for the three groups. No postoperative phlebitis or other venous sequelae of the vein used for injection occurred in any of the patients at recovery of anaesthesia nor after 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: From the above results, we conclude that the alteration of the type of emulsion and the higher concentration of propofol in the new parenteral formulation of propofol does not affect the pharmacokinetics and induction characteristics of propofol, compared with the currently available product. Propofol 6% SAZN can be administered safely and has the advantage of a reduction of the load of fat and emulsifier which may be preferable when long term administration of propofol is required.