Halothane and propofol differentially affect electroencephalographic responses to noxious stimulation

被引:30
|
作者
Orth, M
Barter, L
Dominguez, C
Atherley, R
Carstens, E
Antognini, JF
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, Davis, CA USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Sect Neurobiol Physiol & Behav, Davis, CA USA
[3] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, Dept Anesthesiol, Newark, NJ USA
关键词
anaesthetics i.v; propofol; anaesthetics volatile; halothane; brain; electroencephalography; model; rat; pain; experimental;
D O I
10.1093/bja/aei208
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background. Anaesthetics blunt neuronal responses to noxious stimulation, including effects on electroencephalographic (EEG) responses. It is unclear how anaesthetics differ in their ability to modulate noxious stimulation-evoked EEG activation. We investigated the actions of propofol and halothane on EEG responses to noxious stimuli, including repetitive electrical C-fibre stimulation, which normally evokes neuronal wind-up. Methods. Rats were anaesthetized with halothane (n = 8) or propofol (n = 8), at 0.8x or 1.2x the amount required to produce immobility in response to tail clamping [minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for halothane and median effective dose (ED50) for propofol]. We recorded EEG responses to repetitive electrical stimulus trains (delivered to the tail at 0.1, 1 and 3 Hz) as well as supramaximal noxious tail stimulation (clamp; 50 Hz electrical stimulus, each for 30 s). Results. Under halothane anaesthesia, noxious stimuli evoked an EEG activation response manifested by increased spectral edge frequency (SEF) and median edge frequency (MEF). At 0.8 MAC halothane, the tail clamp increased the MEF from approximate to 6 to approximate to 8.5 Hz, and the SEF from approximate to 25.5 to approximate to 27 Hz. At both 0.8 and 1.2 MAC halothane, similar patterns of EEG activation were observed with the 1 Hz, 3 Hz and tetanic stimulus trains, but not with 0.1 Hz stimulation, which does not evoke wind-up. Under propofol anaesthesia, noxious stimuli were generally ineffective in causing EEG activation. At 0.8 ED50 propofol, only the tail clamp and 1 Hz stimuli increased MEF (approximate to 8 to approximate to 10-10.5 Hz). At the higher propofol infusion rate (1.2 ED50) the repetitive electrical stimuli did not evoke an EEG response, but the tetanic stimulus and the tail clamp paradoxically decreased SEF (from approximate to 23 to approximate to 21.5 Hz). Conclusions. Propofol has a more significant blunting effect on EEG responses to noxious stimulation compared with halothane.
引用
收藏
页码:477 / 484
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Propofol and Sevoflurane Differentially Modulate Cortical Depolarization following Electric Stimulation of the Ventrobasal Thalamus
    Kratzer, Stephan
    Mattusch, Corinna
    Garcia, Paul S.
    Schmid, Sebastian
    Kochs, Eberhard
    Rammes, Gerhard
    Schneider, Gerhard
    Kreuzer, Matthias
    Haseneder, Rainer
    FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2017, 11
  • [32] Probability to tolerate laryngoscopy and noxious stimulation response index as general indicators of the anaesthetic potency of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil
    Hannivoort, L. N.
    Vereecke, H. E. M.
    Proost, J. H.
    Heyse, B. E. K.
    Eleveld, D. J.
    Bouillon, T. W.
    Struys, M. M. R. F.
    Luginbuehl, M.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2016, 116 (05) : 624 - 631
  • [33] Halothane and isoflurane differentially affect the regulation of dopamine and gamma-aminobutyric acid release mediated by presynaptic acetylcholine receptors in the rat striatum
    Salord, F
    Keita, H
    Lecharny, JB
    Henzel, D
    Desmonts, JM
    Mantz, J
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 86 (03) : 632 - 641
  • [34] Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning
    Gibson, T. J.
    Johnson, C. B.
    Murrell, J. C.
    Hulls, C. M.
    Mitchinson, S. L.
    Stafford, K. J.
    Johnstone, A. C.
    Mellor, D. J.
    NEW ZEALAND VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2009, 57 (02) : 77 - 83
  • [35] Semimechanistic models to relate noxious stimulation, movement, and pupillary dilation responses in the presence of opioids
    Marco-Arino, Nicolas
    Vide, Sergio
    Agusti, Merce
    Chen, Andrew
    Jaramillo, Sebastian
    Irurzun-Arana, Itziar
    Pacheco, Adria
    Gonzalez, Carmen
    Jensen, Erik W.
    Capsi-Morales, Patricia
    Valencia, Jose F.
    Troconiz, Inaki F.
    Gambus, Pedro L.
    Larson, Merlin D.
    CPT-PHARMACOMETRICS & SYSTEMS PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 11 (05): : 581 - 593
  • [36] CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONSES OF PRIMARY SOMATOSENSORY CEREBRAL-CORTEX NEURONS TO NOXIOUS VISCERAL STIMULATION IN THE RAT
    FOLLETT, KA
    DIRKS, B
    BRAIN RESEARCH, 1994, 656 (01) : 27 - 32
  • [37] Cannabinoid system of dorsomedial telencephalon modulates behavioral responses to noxious stimulation in the fish Leporinus macrocephalus
    Bejo Wolkers, Carla Patricia
    Menescal-de-Oliveira, Leda
    Hoffmann, Anette
    PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, 2017, 179 : 504 - 509
  • [38] Can cortical responses following noxious stimulation inform us about pain processing in neonates?
    Slater, Rebeccah
    Fitzgerald, Maria
    Meek, Judith
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2007, 31 (05) : 298 - 302
  • [39] Thiopentone induced enhancement of somatic motor responses to noxious stimulation: Influence of GABA(A) receptor modulation
    Archer, DP
    Ewen, A
    Froelich, J
    Roth, SH
    Samanani, N
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1996, 43 (05): : 503 - 510
  • [40] Daily administration of Sake Lees (Sake Kasu) reduced psychophysical stress-induced hyperalgesia and Fos responses in the lumbar spinal dorsal horn evoked by noxious stimulation to the hindpaw in the rats
    Shimizu, Shiho
    Nakatani, Yosuke
    Kakihara, Yoshito
    Taiyoji, Mayumi
    Saeki, Makio
    Takagi, Ritsuo
    Yamamura, Kensuke
    Okamoto, Keiichiro
    BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, 2020, 84 (01) : 159 - 170