| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The special antishivering action of meperidine may be mediated by its or anticholinergic actions. We therefore tested the hypotheses that nalbuphine or atropine decreases the shivering threshold more than the vasoconstriction threshold. Eight volunteers were each evaluated on four separate study days: 1) control (no drug), 2) small-dose nalbuphine (0.2 µg/mL), 3) large-dose nalbuphine (0.4 µg/mL), and 4) atropine (1-mg bolus and 0.5 mg/h). Body temperature was increased until the patient sweated and then decreased until the patient shivered. Nalbuphine produced concentration-dependent decreases (mean ± SD) in the sweating (-2.5 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL; r2 = 0.75 ± 0.25), vasoconstriction (-2.6 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL; r2 = 0.75 ± 0.25), and shivering (-2.8 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL; r2 = 0.79 ± 0.23) thresholds. Atropine significantly increased the thresholds for sweating (1.0°C ± 0.4°C), vasoconstriction (0.9°C ± 0.3°C), and shivering (0.7°C ± 0.3°C). Nalbuphine reduced the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably. This differs markedly from meperidine, which impairs shivering twice as much as vasoconstriction. Atropine increased all thresholds and would thus be expected to facilitate shivering. Our results thus fail to support the theory that activation of -opioid or central anticholinergic receptors contribute to meperidines special antishivering action.
IMPLICATIONS: The activation of neither
Core temperature in humans is well maintained because even small deviations trigger effective thermoregulatory defenses, such as sweating and vasoconstriction (1). Because the normal sweating and vasoconstriction thresholds differ by only 0.2°C (2), normal body temperature is sometimes referred to as a "set point." Opioids (3), like general anesthetics, impair thermoregulatory defenses, producing a characteristic increase in the sweating threshold (triggering core temperature) combined with a synchronous reduction in the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. The result is a marked increase in the sweating-to-vasoconstriction interthreshold rangethe temperatures between which autonomic thermoregulatory defenses are not triggered. Meperidine is a far more effective treatment for shivering than pure µ-receptor agonists, such as morphine (4). The special efficacy of meperidine is manifested by a disproportionate reduction in the shivering threshold (5) without any reduction in the gain of shivering (6). Meperidine thus reduces the shivering thresholds twice as much as the vasoconstriction threshold at any given concentration (5). This is in distinct contrast to general anesthetics and pure µ-receptor opioids that comparably reduce the thresholds for each major cold defense (7).
The special antishivering action of meperidine may in part be mediated by its agonist activity at
There is thus considerable reason to believe that Meperidine produces numerous pharmacologic actions in addition to its opioid effects. Among the most important is the drugs central anticholinergic action (12). The extent to which central anticholinergic activity contributes to meperidines antishivering action remains unknown. We therefore also tested the hypothesis that the central anticholinergic drug atropine disproportionately decreases the shivering threshold.
With approval from the Committee on Human Research at the University of California in San Francisco and informed consent, we studied eight healthy male volunteers. Volunteers had a light breakfast before arriving at the laboratory, but they refrained from coffee and tea intake during the 8 h before each investigation. During the study, they were allowed to drink water and to eat crackers. Ambient temperature in the laboratory was maintained at 22.0°C ± 0.2°C, with a relative humidity of 42% ± 5%. The volunteers were minimally clothed during the protocol and rested supine on a standard operating room table. The volunteers were each evaluated on four separate study days: 1) control (no drug), 2) small-dose nalbuphine (target plasma concentration of 0.2 µg/mL), 3) large-dose nalbuphine day (0.4 µg/mL), and 4) atropine (1-mg bolus, followed by an infusion of 0.5 mg/h). To avoid circadian fluctuations, studies were scheduled so that thermoregulatory responses were triggered at similar times on each of the 4 days. An IV catheter was inserted into the left forearm for fluid, nalbuphine, and atropine administration. Lactated Ringers solution was given as necessary to maintain mean arterial blood pressure >60 mm Hg. A 14-gauge catheter was inserted into a right antecubital vein and used for blood sampling. Nalbuphine was administered IV by using a computer-controlled syringe pump. The infusion profile was based on use of a modification of the Kruger-Thiemer method (13), with coefficients estimated from published pharmacokinetic data (14). To minimize the effects of tolerance, the smaller nalbuphine dose was always studied first, and at least 1 wk elapsed between the two nalbuphine days. The control day was either between or after the other two study days. Atropine was always studied last; the drug was given as a 1-mg bolus, followed by an infusion of 0.5 mg/h. Thermal manipulation began 15 min after the study drug was started. To minimize redistribution hypothermia, we prewarmed the volunteers for half an hour with a full-body forced-air warmer (Augustine Medical, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN) on "low" and a circulating-water mattress (Cincinnati Sub-Zero, Cincinnati, OH) set at 37°C. Throughout the protocol, arms were protected from active warming and cooling to avoid locally mediated vasomotion. However, all other skin below the neck was similarly manipulated throughout each study day.
Skin and core temperatures were first gradually increased with a forced-air warmer and circulating-water mattress until sweating was observed. Skin and core temperatures were then gradually decreased, by using the circulating-water mattress and a prototype forced-air cooler (Augustine Medical, Inc.). As in previous studies (7), the sweating threshold was determined first because this threshold deviates least from normal body temperature. This protocol allowed a considerably shorter study day than if we had first cooled to the shivering and then rewarmed all the way to the sweating threshold. The study ended each day when shivering was detected. Skin and core temperature changes were restricted to Heart rate and oxyhemoglobin saturation were measured continuously by using pulse oximetry, and blood pressure was determined oscillometrically at 5-min intervals at the left ankle. End-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations were measured from a catheter inserted into one nostril, by using a Rascal monitor (Ohmeda Inc., Salt Lake City, UT); exhaust gas from this monitor was returned to a DeltaTrac oxygen consumption monitor (SensorMedics Corp., Yorba Linda, CA). Core temperature was recorded from the tympanic membrane by using Mon-a-Therm thermocouples (Mallinckrodt Anesthesiology Products, Inc., St. Louis, MO). The aural probes were inserted by the volunteers until they felt the thermocouple touch the tympanic membrane; appropriate placement was confirmed when volunteers easily detected a gentle rubbing of the attached wire. The aural canal was occluded with cotton, the probe securely taped in place, and a gauze bandage positioned over the external ear. Mean skin-surface temperature was calculated from measurements at 15 area-weighted sites (15). Temperatures were recorded at 1-min intervals from thermocouples connected to calibrated Iso-Thermex thermometers having an accuracy of 0.1°C and a precision of 0.01°C (Columbus Instruments Corp., Columbus, OH). Sweating was continuously quantified on the left upper chest, just below the clavicle, by using a ventilated capsule (16). As in previous studies (3), sustained sweating >40 g · m-2 · h-1 defined the sweating threshold. Absolute right middle fingertip blood flow was quantified with venous-occlusion volume plethysmography at 1-min intervals (17); as in our previous evaluation of opioids (3), a decrease in finger blood flow to <1.0 mL/min was defined as the threshold for vasoconstriction.
Shivering was evaluated with oxygen consumption, as measured by the DeltaTrac metabolic monitor. The system was used in canopy mode, and measurements were averaged over 1-min intervals and recorded every 5 min. As in numerous previous studies, a sustained increase in oxygen consumption to Venous blood was sampled for nalbuphine concentrations before drug administration and at the time of sweating, vasoconstriction, and shivering. Blood components were separated in a refrigerated centrifuge for 30 min, and the plasma samples were isolated and then stored at -20°C for subsequent analysis with high-performance liquid chromatography. One-milliliter aliquots of plasma for nalbuphine analysis were alkalinized with 1.5 mL of 0.5 M Na3PO4 in a polypropylene centrifuge tube and extracted into 5 mL of ethyl acetate, along with 0.1 mL of 25 mg/L naloxone, which served as the internal standard. The ethyl acetate layer was transferred to a second polypropylene tube and evaporated to dryness under nitrogen at 40°C. It was reconstituted in 0.1 mL mobile phase. The mobile phase was 300:700:0.6 acetonitrile/20 mM KH2PO4/triethylamine running through a 150- by 3.9-mm-long Novapak C-18 column (Waters Associates, Milford, MA) at a rate of 1.2 mL/min with detection by ultraviolet absorbance at 205 nm. The response was linear to at least 5000 ng/mL, with a detection limit of 10 ng/mL and a within-day coefficient of variation of 5.1% at 400 ng/mL. Pupil diameter and light-reflex amplitude (the difference between the prestimulus diameter and the minimum diameter in the 2 s after a pulse of visible light) are both inversely correlated with opioid effect (18). We therefore used pupillary responses to evaluate the pharmacodynamic effects of nalbuphine and atropine. A portable infrared pupillometer (Fairville Medical Optics, Inc., Amersham, Buckinghamshire, England) was used to measure the pupillary response. The pupillometer was programmed to provide a 0.5-s duration, 130 candela/m2 pulse of visible light and scan the pupil at a rate of 10 Hz for 2 s from the beginning of the light stimulus. Pupillary diameter and light reflex amplitude from the right eye were measured at baseline and three times in succession at each threshold, and the resulting values were averaged. Ambient light was maintained near 150 lux, and the left eye was kept covered during the measurements. We have previously described the use of this pupillometer (19). Sedation was assessed with the Observers Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score (OAA/S). The OAA/S test consists of four components (Table 1); as described by Chernik et al. (20), we summed the component scores. Sedation was evaluated at the time of sweating, vasoconstriction, and shivering.
The number of vomiting episodes was recorded. Nausea was rated on a visual analog scale, with 0 mm being defined as normal and 100 mm identifying the worst imaginable severity. Nausea was recorded at baseline and at each thermoregulatory response threshold. Volunteers were also asked to rate their overall discomfort on a visual analog scale at each threshold. We defined 0 mm as the best feeling and 100 mm as extreme discomfort. A new, unmarked scale was used for each query. Volunteers were called at home the evening after each study and asked to provide a verbal estimate of their visual analog scores for nausea and overall discomfort. Volunteers were also queried about their experience the day after each study. Ambient temperature and humidity on each study day were first averaged for each volunteer; the resulting values were then averaged among the volunteers. Pupillary, hemodynamic, and respiratory responses and mean skin temperature at baseline and each thermoregulatory threshold were similarly averaged first for each volunteer on each treatment day and subsequently among the volunteers. Results for each study day were compared by use of repeated-measures analysis of variance, with the Scheffé F test for post hoc intragroup comparison. Thermoregulatory response thresholds were determined by arithmetically compensating for alterations in skin temperature by using a previously described model (21). The coefficient of cutaneous contribution (ß) was taken as 0.1 for sweating (22) and 0.2 for vasoconstriction and shivering (23). The designated skin temperature was set at 34°C because that is a typical intraoperative value. From the calculated core temperature thresholds on each study day, nalbuphine concentration-response curves for the sweating, vasoconstriction, and shivering thresholds were determined with linear regression. The average slopes and correlation coefficients (r2) for the individual volunteers were then computed from these values. Additionally, a single regression for each thermoregulatory response was determined from the combined data from all eight volunteers. The control pupillary and thermoregulatory responses were compared with those reported on the atropine day with two-tailed, paired t-tests. We thus considered the nalbuphine and atropine portions of the study to be distinct from an analysis point of view, although the two protocols shared a common control group.
Morphometric characteristics of the volunteers included age (29 ± 4 yr), weight (76 ± 8 kg), height (173 ± 6 cm), body fat (19% ± 3%), and lean body mass (59 ± 4 kg) (mean ± SD). Ambient temperature ( 22.0°C), relative humidity ( 42%), and sedation scores were comparable with each treatment. Even at the largest nalbuphine dose, the volunteers were only minimally sedated. Atropine did not cause sedation. Nalbuphine administration had no clinically important hemodynamic effects. However, nalbuphine and atropine both significantly increased end-tidal PCO2. Atropine also significantly increased heart rate.
By design, plasma nalbuphine concentrations differed significantly on the small- and the large-dose days, being
Nalbuphine produced a concentration-dependent decrease in the sweating threshold of -2.5 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL; r2 = 0.75 ± 0.25. Nalbuphine also decreased the vasoconstriction threshold by -2.6 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL (r2 = 0.75 ± 0.25) and the shivering threshold by -2.8 ± 1.7°C · µg-1 · mL (r2 = 0.79 ± 0.23). Nalbuphine administration did not significantly increase the sweating-to-vasoconstriction interthreshold range; nor did nalbuphine increase the vasoconstriction-to-shivering range (Table 3). Regressions computed from the average values in all eight volunteers are shown in Figure 1. Atropine significantly increased the thresholds for sweating (1.0°C ± 0.4°C), vasoconstriction (0.9°C ± 0.3°C), and shivering (0.7°C ± 0.3°C) (Fig. 2).
Nalbuphine significantly reduced pupil diameter, but the reduction was comparable on the large- and small-dose study days. Reflex amplitude was reduced significantly at the sweating and vasoconstriction threshold. Atropine, as expected, produced significant pupillary dilation; however, reflex amplitude remained unchanged (Table 4).
None of the volunteers became nauseated or vomited during thermoregulatory testing. However, one volunteer vomited during recovery from small-dose nalbuphine, and three were nauseated (visual analog scores of 77 ± 15 mm) that evening. Three volunteers vomited during recovery from large-dose nalbuphine, and five volunteers were nauseated (visual analog scores of 70 ± 13 mm) that evening. Two volunteers became euphoric after small-dose nalbuphine administration, whereas one reported dysphoria at the higher dose. Visual analog scores for overall discomfort were 21 ± 14 mm on the evening of the small-dose nalbuphine day and 29 ± 27 mm on the evening of the large-dose nalbuphine day. No vomiting was reported in the day after the study in either group, and none of the study subjects reported dysphoria. Parasympathetic side effects, including dry mouth, made the volunteers uncomfortable on the atropine study day. Furthermore, the volunteers had the highest discomfort scores during atropine. However, they had difficulty articulating why they felt poorly and made comments such as "it is a strange feeling" and "I dont like it." However, all reported feeling normal by the subsequent day.
Opioids, anesthetics, and most sedatives increase the sweating threshold while simultaneously decreasing the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. Divergent thresholds thus increase the sweating-to-vasoconstriction interthreshold range, which is analogous to a decrease in the precision of thermoregulatory control. The combination of an increased sweating threshold and reduced vasoconstriction threshold makes the patient poikilotherm over a wider range of core temperatures, thus decreasing the ability to maintain normothermia over a normal range of ambient temperatures. In contrast, nalbuphine slightly decreased the sweating threshold while decreasing the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds even more. Nalbuphine thus decreased the set point, but it also somewhat reduced the precision of thermoregulatory control. This pattern has previously been reported only twice, with midazolam (24) and tramadol (25). This reduction might impair rewarming from hypothermia in a postoperative patient because vasoconstriction normally decreases cutaneous heat loss and facilitates core rewarming by constraining metabolic heat to the core compartment.
However, nalbuphine reduced the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably. The vasoconstriction-to-shivering range thus remained unchanged during drug administration. A synchronous reduction in the major autonomic cold-response thresholds differs markedly from meperidine, which impairs shivering twice as much as vasoconstriction. It is thus apparent that meperidines
Our results suggest that some other aspect of meperidines pharmacology is responsible for the drugs special antishivering action. Unlike other opioids, meperidine produces generalized electroencephalographic activation, apparently via the inhibition of central cholinergic receptors (12). Monoamine oxidase inhibitors combined with meperidine, but not other opioids, produce a potentially lethal hyperthermia syndrome (26). However, one of the most important nonopioid actions of meperidine is the drugs central anticholinergic activity (12). We thus tested the theory that atropine-induced central cholinergic inhibition contributes to meperidines special antishivering action. Our results, though, fail to support this hypothesis: instead, atropine increased all three major autonomic response thresholds. Furthermore, the threshold increases were synchronous; that is, each was comparably increased. Atropine thus increased the "set point," rather than decreasing the precision of thermoregulatory control. This thermoregulatory pattern shares some characteristics of fever but differs from all other perioperative drugs that have been formally evaluated. Atropine premedication increases the incidence of postoperative shivering (29), as does glycopyrrolate (30). Anticholinergic toxicity can also be associated with severe or even lethal hyperthermia, a condition known as the "central cholinergic syndrome" (31). In contrast, physostigmine induces cold defenses at neutral temperature and provokes hyperthermia (32). Furthermore, postanesthetic shivering is prevented by the application of central cholinergic agonists in mice (33). Consistent with these observations, physostigmine is an effective treatment for shivering in humans (34).
Our results do not support the theory that activation of
In contrast to µ-receptor agonists, the pupillary effects of The OAA/S score remained normal even after large-dose atropine administration. As might be expected, atropine produced parasympathetic side effects. It also produced dysphoria, and the volunteers thus considered atropine to be the worst of the four study days. In contrast, dysphoria was rare during nalbuphine. Many of the volunteers given nalbuphine became nauseated, but nausea started well after completion of the thermoregulatory measurements and is thus unlikely to have altered our threshold determinations.
In summary, nalbuphine reduced the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably. The vasoconstriction-to-shivering range thus remained unchanged. This differs markedly from meperidine, which impairs shivering twice as much as vasoconstriction. Atropine increased all thresholds and would thus be expected to facilitate shivering. Our results thus fail to support the theory that activation of
Supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM58273 (Bethesda, MD), the Joseph Drown Foundation (Los Angeles, CA), and the Commonwealth of Kentucky Research Challenge Trust (Louisville, KY). Mallinckrodt Anesthesiology Products, Inc. (St. Louis, MO), donated the thermocouples.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|