Sevoflurane remifentanil interaction: comparison of different response surface models

Various pharmacodynamic response surface models have been developed to quantitatively describe the relationship between two or more drug concentrations with their combined clinical effect. We examined the interaction of remifentanil and sevoflurane on the probability of tolerance to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy in patients to compare the performance of five different response surface models.

Response surface modeling of the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane

BACKGROUND: Propofol and sevoflurane display additivity for gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor activation, loss of consciousness, and tolerance of skin incision. Information about their interaction regarding electroencephalographic suppression is unavailable. This study examined this interaction as well as the interaction on the probability of tolerance of shake and shout and three noxious stimulations by using a response surface methodology. METHODS: Sixty patients preoperatively received different combined concentrations of propofol (0-12 microg/ml) and sevoflurane (0-3.5 vol.%) according to a crisscross design (274 concentration pairs, 3 to 6 per patient). After having reached pseudo-steady state, the authors recorded bispectral index, state and response entropy and the response to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy. For the analysis of the probability of tolerance by logistic regression, a Greco interaction model was used. For the separate analysis of bispectral index, state and response entropy suppression, a fractional Emax Greco model was used. All calculations were performed with NONMEM V (GloboMax LLC, Hanover, MD). RESULTS: Additivity was found for all endpoints, the Ce(50, PROP)/Ce(50, SEVO) for bispectral index suppression was 3.68 microg. ml(-1)/ 1.53 vol.%, for tolerance of shake and shout 2.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 1.03 vol.%, tetanic stimulation 5.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 2.11 vol.%, laryngeal mask airway insertion 5.92 microg. ml(-1) / 2.55 vol.%, and laryngoscopy 6.55 microg. ml(-1)/2.83 vol.%. CONCLUSION: For both electroencephalographic suppression and tolerance to stimulation, the interaction of propofol and sevoflurane was identified as additive. The response surface data can be used for more rational dose finding in case of sequential and coadministration of propofol and sevoflurane.