<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE art SYSTEM 'http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/article.dtd'>
<art>
   <ui>cc1037</ui>
   <ji>CCJ</ji>
   <fm>
      <dochead>Meeting abstract</dochead>
      <bibl>
         <title>
            <p>In vitro variability in propofol absorption by different membrane oxygenators</p>
         </title>
         <aug>
            <au id="A1">
               <snm>Hickey</snm>
               <fnm>S</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A2">
               <snm>Quasim</snm>
               <fnm>I</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A3">
               <snm>Gaylor</snm>
               <fnm>JD</fnm>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
         </aug>
         <insg>
            <ins id="I1">
               <p>Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow</p>
            </ins>
            <ins id="I2">
               <p>Department of Bioengineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK</p>
            </ins>
         </insg>
         <source>Critical Care</source>
         <supplement>
            <title>
               <p>18th Spring Meeting of the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists</p>
            </title>
            <sponsor>
               <note>Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Bayer plc</note>
            </sponsor>
            <note>Meeting abstracts</note>
         </supplement>
         <conference>
            <title>
               <p>18th Spring Meeting of the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists</p>
            </title>
            <location>Cambridge, UK</location>
            <date-range>22 June 2001</date-range>
         </conference>
         <issn>1364-8535</issn>
         <pubdate>2001</pubdate>
         <volume>5</volume>
         <issue>Suppl C</issue>
         <fpage>8</fpage>
         <xrefbib>
            <pubid idtype="doi">10.1186/cc1037</pubid>
         </xrefbib>
      </bibl>
      <history>
         <pub>
            <date>
               <day>3</day>
               <month>7</month>
               <year>2001</year>
            </date>
         </pub>
      </history>
      <cpyrt>
         <year>2001</year>
         <collab>BioMed Central Ltd</collab>
      </cpyrt>
   </fm>
   <meta>
      <classifications>
         <classification type="BMC" subtype="old_arx_id">cc-5-4-236-08</classification>
      </classifications>
   </meta>
   <bdy>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Introduction</p>
         </st>
         <p>The sequestration of drugs, such as fentanyl [<abbr bid="B1">1</abbr>,<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>], thiopental, nitroglycerine and propofol [<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>] in the extracorporeal circuit <it>in vitro</it> has been well described. This phenomenon can change the pharmacokinetic behaviour of drugs during cardiopulmonary bypass, thus potentially leading to problems in achieving adequate dosing regimens.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Objective</p>
         </st>
         <p>The aim of this <it>in vitro</it> laboratory study was to compare the binding of propofol to different oxygenator membranes, and to examine the effects of the type of prime solution and temperature on the rate of binding.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Methods</p>
         </st>
         <p>Samples of three types of membrane oxygenators were used: the SM-35 (polydimethylsiloxane in sheet form), the CML (polypropylene in sheet form) and the SAFE II (polypropylene in hollow fibre form). <sup>14</sup>C-propofol in either crystalloid solution or diluted bovine blood was incubated with samples of membranes at 28&#176;C or 37&#176;C. Membrane samples were removed at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min and rinsed. The mass of propofol bound to the various membranes was then measured using liquid scintillation counting. This experiment was carried out for both types of prime solution at 28&#176;C and 37&#176;C.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Results</p>
         </st>
         <p>See Table <tblr tid="T1">1</tblr>. The SM-35 membrane bound significantly more propofol than the membranes from the CML and the SAFE II. Binding of propofol in diluted blood was significantly less than in crystalloid solution. Temperature had little effect on propofol binding in either prime solution type.</p>
         <tbl id="T1">
            <title>
               <p>Table 1</p>
            </title>
            <caption>
               <p/>
            </caption>
            <tblbdy cols="6">
               <r>
                  <c>
                     <p/>
                  </c>
                  <c>
                     <p/>
                  </c>
                  <c cspan="2" ca="center">
                     <p>Crystalloid solution mass (mg/membrane<sup>*</sup>)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c cspan="2" ca="center">
                     <p>Diluted blood mass (mg/membrane<sup>*</sup>)</p>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c>
                     <p/>
                  </c>
                  <c>
                     <p/>
                  </c>
                  <c cspan="2">
                     <hr/>
                  </c>
                  <c cspan="2">
                     <hr/>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c ca="left">
                     <p>Membrane (surface area)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>Time (min)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>28&#176;C</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>37&#176;C</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>28&#176;C</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>37&#176;C</p>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c cspan="6">
                     <hr/>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c ca="left">
                     <p>SM-35 (3.5 m<sup>2</sup>)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>120</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>113.4 &#177; 2.80</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>121.1 &#177; 5.60</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>21.35 &#177; 1.82</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>29.40 &#177; 3.04</p>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c ca="left">
                     <p>CML (3.0 m<sup>2</sup>)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>120</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>6.30 &#177; 1.80</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>25.5 &#177; 1.20</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>1.20 &#177; 0.09</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>0.90 &#177; 0.03</p>
                  </c>
               </r>
               <r>
                  <c ca="left">
                     <p>SAFE II (2.0 m<sup>2</sup>)</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>120</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>23.60 &#177; 1.00</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>22.80 &#177; 1.00</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>2.60 &#177; 0.12</p>
                  </c>
                  <c ca="center">
                     <p>2.80 &#177; 0.06</p>
                  </c>
               </r>
            </tblbdy>
            <tblfn>
               <p><sup>*</sup>Mean &#177; SD mass of propofol which could be bound by membrane of intact oxygenator, <it>n</it> = 5 (based on mass of propofol bound per cm<sup>2</sup> of membrane)</p>
            </tblfn>
         </tbl>
      </sec>
   </bdy>
   <bm>
      <refgrp>
         <bibl id="B1">
            <title>
               <p>Sequestration of fentanyl by the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPBP).</p>
            </title>
            <aug>
               <au>
                  <snm>Koren</snm>
                  <fnm>G</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Crean</snm>
                  <fnm>P</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Klein</snm>
                  <fnm>J</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Goresky</snm>
                  <fnm>G</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Villamater</snm>
                  <fnm>J</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>MacLeod</snm>
                  <fnm>SM</fnm>
               </au>
            </aug>
            <source>Eur J Clin Pharmacol</source>
            <pubdate>1984</pubdate>
            <volume>27</volume>
            <fpage>51</fpage>
            <xrefbib>
               <pubidlist>
                  <pubid idtype="doi">10.1007/BF00553154</pubid>
                  <pubid idtype="pmpid">6489427</pubid>
               </pubidlist>
            </xrefbib>
         </bibl>
         <bibl id="B2">
            <title>
               <p>Extracorporeal circuit sequestration of fentanyl and alfentanil.</p>
            </title>
            <aug>
               <au>
                  <snm>Skacel</snm>
                  <fnm>M</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Knott</snm>
                  <fnm>C</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Reynolds</snm>
                  <fnm>F</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Aps</snm>
                  <fnm>C</fnm>
               </au>
            </aug>
            <source>Br J Anaesth</source>
            <pubdate>1986</pubdate>
            <volume>58</volume>
            <fpage>947</fpage>
            <lpage>949</lpage>
            <xrefbib>
               <pubid idtype="pmpid">3092850</pubid>
            </xrefbib>
         </bibl>
         <bibl id="B3">
            <title>
               <p>Sequestration of propofol in an extracorporeal circuit.</p>
            </title>
            <aug>
               <au>
                  <snm>Tarr</snm>
                  <fnm>TJ</fnm>
               </au>
               <au>
                  <snm>Kent</snm>
                  <fnm>AP</fnm>
               </au>
            </aug>
            <source>J Cardiothorac Anesth</source>
            <pubdate>1989</pubdate>
            <volume>3(suppl 1)</volume>
            <fpage>75</fpage>
            <xrefbib>
               <pubid idtype="doi">10.1016/0888-6296(89)90818-1</pubid>
            </xrefbib>
         </bibl>
      </refgrp>
   </bm>
</art>
