Comparing Four Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamic Models Target Controlled Infusion of Propofol in a Younger Population
Martin McCormick¹ , Jörg Prinzlin², and Nick Sutcliffe²
1. University Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow Royal Infirmary
2. Department of Anaesthesia, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank G81 4HX, Scotland
|
Marsh |
Schüttler |
Schnider |
WK |
LOER1/ROER |
0.78 |
0.41 |
0.20 |
0.72 |
LOER2 /ROER |
0.85 |
0.66 |
0.24 |
0.82 |
LOVR1/ ROVR |
0.64 |
0.33 |
0.37 |
0.57 |
LOVR2/ ROVR |
0.87 |
0.66 |
0.29 |
0.81 |
LOVR1/LOVR2 |
0.50 |
0.17 |
0.40 |
0.39 |
LOER1/LOER2 |
0.63 |
0.35 |
0.69 |
0.55 |
The Marsh model consistently showed the best when assessed in this way, except when comparing LOER1/LOER2, where the Schnider model had the most accurate predictive value
1) Marsh B. BJA 1991; 67:41-8
2) Schnider T. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1502-16
3) Schüttler J. Anesthesiology 2000; 92:727-73
4) Kenny GN. BJA submitted, personal communication