Key result
Computer simulations of propofol infusion showed the Kirkpatrick pharmacokinetic parameter set had significantly worse performance (MDAPE 106%, P<0.001) than the Gepts set (MDAPE 26%).
Why the study?
Does the choice of pharmacokinetic parameter set affect the performance of computer-controlled infusion of propofol in female patients?
Population
19 female patients who had been given propofol by computer-controlled infusion
Comparison
Computer simulation of propofol concentrations… vs The initially used pharmacokinetic parameter set…
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Kirkpatrick parameters warrant avoidance in propofol TCI for females; leaves open prospective validation of optimal sets at higher targets.
Observational (n=19)
Does the choice of pharmacokinetic parameter set affect the performance of computer-controlled infusion of propofol in female patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 106% vs 26%
p-value: p=<0.001
Four out of five tested pharmacokinetic parameter sets for propofol provide clinically acceptable performance for computer-controlled infusion, though underprediction increases with higher target concentrations.
Vuyk et al. (1995) conducted an observational in Anesthesia induction and maintenance (n=19). Computer-controlled infusion of propofol using different pharmacokinetic parameter sets vs. Gepts et al. pharmacokinetic parameter set was evaluated on Median absolute performance error (MDAPE) (p=<0.001). Computer simulations of propofol infusion showed the Kirkpatrick pharmacokinetic parameter set had significantly worse performance (MDAPE 106%, P<0.001) than the Gepts set (MDAPE 26%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: