Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events
Background: The primary aim of this essay was to explore the best fitting model in remifentanil-propofol combined administrations during esophageal instrumentation (EI) from five distinct response surface models. The secondary aim was to combine the models to give appropriate effect-site drug concen...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of the Formosan Medical Association |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664622002169 |
| _version_ | 1811217144821579776 |
|---|---|
| author | Ziyi Jiang Yang Liu Xiaotong Zhang Chien-Kun Ting Xiu Wang Lara M. Brewer Lu Yu |
| author_facet | Ziyi Jiang Yang Liu Xiaotong Zhang Chien-Kun Ting Xiu Wang Lara M. Brewer Lu Yu |
| author_sort | Ziyi Jiang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The primary aim of this essay was to explore the best fitting model in remifentanil-propofol combined administrations during esophageal instrumentation (EI) from five distinct response surface models. The secondary aim was to combine the models to give appropriate effect-site drug concentrations (Ces) range with maximal comfort and safety. Methods: The Greco, reduced Greco, Minto, Scaled C50 Hierarchy and Fixed C50 Hierarchy models were constructed to fit four drug effects: loss of response to esophageal instrumentation (LREI), loss of response to esophageal instrumentation revised (LREIR), intolerable ventilatory depression (IVD) and respiratory compromise (RC). Models were tested by chi-square statistical test and evaluated with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Model prediction performance were measured by successful prediction rate (SPR) and three prediction errors. Results: The reduced Greco model was the best fitting model for LREI and RC, and the Minto model was the best fitting model for LREIR and IVD. The SPRs of reduced Greco model for LREI and RC were 81.76% and 79.81%. The SPRs of Minto model for LREIR and IVD were 80.32% and 80.12%. Overlay of the reduced Greco model for LREI and Minto model for IVD offered visual aid for guidance in drug administration. Conclusion: Using proper response surface model to fit different drug effects will describe the interactions between anesthetic drugs better. Combining response surface models to select the more reliable effect-site drug concentrations range can be used to guide clinical drug administration with greater safety and provide an improvement of anesthesia precision. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T06:50:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-59581fe4e5294c60bfc320c60921f18c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0929-6646 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T06:50:16Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of the Formosan Medical Association |
| spelling | doaj.art-59581fe4e5294c60bfc320c60921f18c2022-12-22T03:43:24ZengElsevierJournal of the Formosan Medical Association0929-66462022-12-011211225012511Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory eventsZiyi Jiang0Yang Liu1Xiaotong Zhang2Chien-Kun Ting3Xiu Wang4Lara M. Brewer5Lu Yu6Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Intelligent Medicine, China Medical University, Shenyang, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Stomatology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Intelligent Medicine, China Medical University, Shenyang, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USADepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Intelligent Medicine, China Medical University, Shenyang, P.R. China; Corresponding author. Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Intelligent Medicine, China Medical University, No. 77, Puhe Road, Shenyang North New Area, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110122, P.R. China.Background: The primary aim of this essay was to explore the best fitting model in remifentanil-propofol combined administrations during esophageal instrumentation (EI) from five distinct response surface models. The secondary aim was to combine the models to give appropriate effect-site drug concentrations (Ces) range with maximal comfort and safety. Methods: The Greco, reduced Greco, Minto, Scaled C50 Hierarchy and Fixed C50 Hierarchy models were constructed to fit four drug effects: loss of response to esophageal instrumentation (LREI), loss of response to esophageal instrumentation revised (LREIR), intolerable ventilatory depression (IVD) and respiratory compromise (RC). Models were tested by chi-square statistical test and evaluated with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Model prediction performance were measured by successful prediction rate (SPR) and three prediction errors. Results: The reduced Greco model was the best fitting model for LREI and RC, and the Minto model was the best fitting model for LREIR and IVD. The SPRs of reduced Greco model for LREI and RC were 81.76% and 79.81%. The SPRs of Minto model for LREIR and IVD were 80.32% and 80.12%. Overlay of the reduced Greco model for LREI and Minto model for IVD offered visual aid for guidance in drug administration. Conclusion: Using proper response surface model to fit different drug effects will describe the interactions between anesthetic drugs better. Combining response surface models to select the more reliable effect-site drug concentrations range can be used to guide clinical drug administration with greater safety and provide an improvement of anesthesia precision.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664622002169Balanced anesthesiaRemifentanilPropofolEndotracheal anesthesiaDeep sedation |
| spellingShingle | Ziyi Jiang Yang Liu Xiaotong Zhang Chien-Kun Ting Xiu Wang Lara M. Brewer Lu Yu Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events Journal of the Formosan Medical Association Balanced anesthesia Remifentanil Propofol Endotracheal anesthesia Deep sedation |
| title | Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| title_full | Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| title_fullStr | Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| title_full_unstemmed | Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| title_short | Response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| title_sort | response surface model comparison and combinations for remifentanil and propofol in describing response to esophageal instrumentation and adverse respiratory events |
| topic | Balanced anesthesia Remifentanil Propofol Endotracheal anesthesia Deep sedation |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664622002169 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ziyijiang responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT yangliu responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT xiaotongzhang responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT chienkunting responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT xiuwang responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT larambrewer responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents AT luyu responsesurfacemodelcomparisonandcombinationsforremifentanilandpropofolindescribingresponsetoesophagealinstrumentationandadverserespiratoryevents |