The effect of propofol on haemodynamics: cardiac output, venous return, mean systemic filling pressure, and vascular resistances

BACKGROUND

Although arterial hypotension occurs frequently with propofol use in humans, its effects on intravascular volume and vascular capacitance are uncertain. We hypothesized that propofol decreases vascular capacitance and therefore decreases stressed volume.

METHODS

Cardiac output (CO) was measured using Modelflow(®) in 17 adult subjects after upper abdominal surgery. Mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) and vascular resistances were calculated using venous return curves constructed by measuring steady-state arterial and venous pressures and CO during inspiratory hold manoeuvres at increasing plateau pressures. Measurements were performed at three incremental levels of targeted blood propofol concentrations.

RESULTS

Mean blood propofol concentrations for the three targeted levels were 3.0, 4.5, and 6.5 µg ml(-1). Mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, MSFP, venous return pressure, Rv, systemic arterial resistance, and resistance of the systemic circulation decreased, stroke volume variation increased, and CO was not significantly different as propofol concentration increased.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in propofol concentration within the therapeutic range causes a decrease in vascular stressed volume without a change in CO. The absence of an effect of propofol on CO can be explained by the balance between the decrease in effective, or stressed, volume (as determined by MSFP), the decrease in resistance for venous return, and slightly improved heart function.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register: NTR2486.

The influence of the hand circulation on the assessment of venous distensibility of the human forearm with venous occlusion plethysmography

AIMS

To determine the influence of the hand circulation on the determination of venous distensibility with venous occlusion plethysmography.

METHODS

In a randomised study, duplicate measurements of forearm venous distensibility, with and without a wrist cuff, were made over occlusion periods of 3 and 12 min in eight volunteers. Treatments were compared with paired Student's t-tests and differences are presented as 95% confidence intervals (CI). Intra-subject variability was assessed with analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Non-significant differences in increases in forearm volume between the occlusions with and without wrist cuff were found for the 3 min occlusion (CI: -0.4, + 0.2%) and the 12 min occlusion period (CI: -0.7, + 0.2%). However, the coefficient of variation was lower with the use of a wrist cuff; after 3 min occlusion (12% vs 19%) and after 12 min of occlusion (14% vs 24%). Forearm volume after 12 min of venous occlusion was 0.5% (CI: + 0.4, + 0.7) higher than after 3 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Although venous distensibility was equal when assessed with and without wrist cuff, exclusion of the hand circulation reduces intraindividual variability. Equilibrium in forearm volume is not reached after 3 min period of venous occlusion, as often assumed. The magnitude of the additional increase after prolonged occlusion stresses the need for well-controlled studies.