Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rittes,José Carlos
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Cagno,Guilherme, Perez,Marcelo Vaz, Mathias,Ligia Andrade da Silva Telles
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300225
Resumo: ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: The vehicle for propofol in 1 and 2% solutions is soybean oil emulsion 10%, which may cause pain on injection, instability of the solution and bacterial contamination. Formulations have been proposed aiming to change the vehicle and reduce these adverse reactions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of pain caused by the injection of propofol, with a hypothesis of reduction associated with nanoemulsion and the occurrence of local and systemic adverse effects with both formulations. METHOD: After approval by the CEP, patients undergoing gynecological procedures were included in this prospective study: control (n = 25) and nanoemulsion (n = 25) groups. Heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation were monitored. Demographics and physical condition were analyzed; surgical time and total volume used of propofol; local or systemic adverse effects; changes in variables monitored. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding demographic data, surgical times, total volume of propofol used, arm withdrawal, pain during injection and variables monitored. There was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity at the time of induction of anesthesia, with less pain intensity in the nanoemulsion group. CONCLUSIONS: Both lipid and nanoemulsion formulations of propofol elicited pain on intravenous injection; however, the nanoemulsion solution elicited a less intense pain. Lipid and nanoemulsion propofol formulations showed neither hemodynamic changes nor adverse effects of clinical relevance.
id SBA-1_7882526f1bfaa7badb583ca01e156818
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942016000300225
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesiaPropofol/pharmacologyPropofol/pharmacokineticsEmulsionsNanostructuresGeneral anesthesiaABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: The vehicle for propofol in 1 and 2% solutions is soybean oil emulsion 10%, which may cause pain on injection, instability of the solution and bacterial contamination. Formulations have been proposed aiming to change the vehicle and reduce these adverse reactions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of pain caused by the injection of propofol, with a hypothesis of reduction associated with nanoemulsion and the occurrence of local and systemic adverse effects with both formulations. METHOD: After approval by the CEP, patients undergoing gynecological procedures were included in this prospective study: control (n = 25) and nanoemulsion (n = 25) groups. Heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation were monitored. Demographics and physical condition were analyzed; surgical time and total volume used of propofol; local or systemic adverse effects; changes in variables monitored. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding demographic data, surgical times, total volume of propofol used, arm withdrawal, pain during injection and variables monitored. There was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity at the time of induction of anesthesia, with less pain intensity in the nanoemulsion group. CONCLUSIONS: Both lipid and nanoemulsion formulations of propofol elicited pain on intravenous injection; however, the nanoemulsion solution elicited a less intense pain. Lipid and nanoemulsion propofol formulations showed neither hemodynamic changes nor adverse effects of clinical relevance.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2016-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300225Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.66 n.3 2016reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.026info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRittes,José CarlosCagno,GuilhermePerez,Marcelo VazMathias,Ligia Andrade da Silva Telleseng2016-05-30T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942016000300225Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2016-05-30T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
title Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
spellingShingle Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
Rittes,José Carlos
Propofol/pharmacology
Propofol/pharmacokinetics
Emulsions
Nanostructures
General anesthesia
title_short Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
title_full Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
title_sort Comparative evaluation of propofol in nanoemulsion with solutol and soy lecithin for general anesthesia
author Rittes,José Carlos
author_facet Rittes,José Carlos
Cagno,Guilherme
Perez,Marcelo Vaz
Mathias,Ligia Andrade da Silva Telles
author_role author
author2 Cagno,Guilherme
Perez,Marcelo Vaz
Mathias,Ligia Andrade da Silva Telles
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rittes,José Carlos
Cagno,Guilherme
Perez,Marcelo Vaz
Mathias,Ligia Andrade da Silva Telles
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Propofol/pharmacology
Propofol/pharmacokinetics
Emulsions
Nanostructures
General anesthesia
topic Propofol/pharmacology
Propofol/pharmacokinetics
Emulsions
Nanostructures
General anesthesia
description ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: The vehicle for propofol in 1 and 2% solutions is soybean oil emulsion 10%, which may cause pain on injection, instability of the solution and bacterial contamination. Formulations have been proposed aiming to change the vehicle and reduce these adverse reactions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of pain caused by the injection of propofol, with a hypothesis of reduction associated with nanoemulsion and the occurrence of local and systemic adverse effects with both formulations. METHOD: After approval by the CEP, patients undergoing gynecological procedures were included in this prospective study: control (n = 25) and nanoemulsion (n = 25) groups. Heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation were monitored. Demographics and physical condition were analyzed; surgical time and total volume used of propofol; local or systemic adverse effects; changes in variables monitored. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding demographic data, surgical times, total volume of propofol used, arm withdrawal, pain during injection and variables monitored. There was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity at the time of induction of anesthesia, with less pain intensity in the nanoemulsion group. CONCLUSIONS: Both lipid and nanoemulsion formulations of propofol elicited pain on intravenous injection; however, the nanoemulsion solution elicited a less intense pain. Lipid and nanoemulsion propofol formulations showed neither hemodynamic changes nor adverse effects of clinical relevance.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300225
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300225
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.026
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.66 n.3 2016
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126628674142208