» Articles » PMID: 9757923

Effect of Enteral Versus Parenteral Feeding on Hepatic Blood Flow and Steady State Propofol Pharmacokinetics in ICU Patients

Overview
Specialty Critical Care
Date 1998 Oct 3
PMID 9757923
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of switching from parenteral to enteral feeding on liver blood flow and propofol steady-state blood concentrations in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Design And Patients: Steady-state blood concentrations of propofol were measured in eight ICU patients before (on days D -3, D -2, and D -1) and after (on days D + 1, D + 2, and D + 3) switching from parenteral to enteral feeding (on day DO). All patients received a continuous intravenous infusion of propofol (4.5 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) from several days before the start of the study, continuing throughout the experimental period. Hepatic blood flow was estimated by measuring steady-state D-sorbitol hepatic clearance.

Results: Hepatic blood flow was high and was not affected by switching from parenteral to enteral feeding: 33 +/- 8 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1) (mean +/- SD) and 33 +/- 10 ml min(-1) x kg(-1) on D -3 and D -1, respectively, as compared to 37 +/- 11 ml x min(-1) kg(-1) and 34 +/- 8 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1) on days D + 1 and D + 3, respectively. Systemic clearance of propofol was much higher than liver blood flow with average values on the six observation days ranging from 74.0 to 81.2 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1) and was not affected by switching from parenteral to enteral feeding.

Conclusions: Liver blood flow and systemic clearance of propofol were not affected by switching from parenteral to enteral feeding in the eight ICU patients studied. Extrahepatic clearance accounted for at least two thirds of the overall systemic clearance of propofol.

Citing Articles

Mini-series: I. Basic science. Uncertainty and inaccuracy of predicting CYP-mediated in vivo drug interactions in the ICU from in vitro models: focus on CYP3A4.

Mouly S, Meune C, Bergmann J Intensive Care Med. 2009; 35(3):417-29.

PMID: 19132343 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1384-1.


Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults.

McKeage K, Perry C CNS Drugs. 2003; 17(4):235-72.

PMID: 12665397 DOI: 10.2165/00023210-200317040-00003.

References
1.
Bailie G, Cockshott I, Douglas E, Bowles B . Pharmacokinetics of propofol during and after long-term continuous infusion for maintenance of sedation in ICU patients. Br J Anaesth. 1992; 68(5):486-91. DOI: 10.1093/bja/68.5.486. View

2.
Liedholm H, Melander A . Concomitant food intake can increase the bioavailability of propranolol by transient inhibition of its presystemic primary conjugation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1986; 40(1):29-36. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1986.135. View

3.
Gray P, Park G, Cockshott I, Douglas E, Shuker B, Simons P . Propofol metabolism in man during the anhepatic and reperfusion phases of liver transplantation. Xenobiotica. 1992; 22(1):105-14. DOI: 10.3109/00498259209053107. View

4.
Raftogianis R, Franklin M, Galinsky R . Effect of total parenteral nutrition containing lipid calories on hepatic drug metabolism in rats. Drug Metab Dispos. 1996; 24(4):502-5. View

5.
Koppel C, Pohle S, Muller C . Rapid determination of functional liver plasma flow in ICU patients by a modified hepatic D-sorbitol plasma clearance method. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 1993; 18(4):327-31. DOI: 10.1007/BF03190181. View