Halothane and propofol differentially affect electroencephalographic responses to noxious stimulation.
BACKGROUND
Anaesthetics blunt neuronal responses to noxious stimulation, including effects on electroencephalographic (EEG) responses. It is unclear how anaesthetics differ in their ability to modulate noxious stimulation-evoked EEG activation. We investigated the actions of propofol and halothane on EEG responses to noxious stimuli, including repetitive electrical C-fibre stimulation, which normally evokes neuronal wind-up.


METHODS
Rats were anaesthetized with halothane (n=8) or propofol (n=8), at 0.8x or 1.2x the amount required to produce immobility in response to tail clamping [minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for halothane and median effective dose (ED(50)) for propofol]. We recorded EEG responses to repetitive electrical stimulus trains (delivered to the tail at 0.1, 1 and 3 Hz) as well as supramaximal noxious tail stimulation (clamp; 50 Hz electrical stimulus, each for 30 s).


RESULTS
Under halothane anaesthesia, noxious stimuli evoked an EEG activation response manifested by increased spectral edge frequency (SEF) and median edge frequency (MEF). At 0.8 MAC halothane, the tail clamp increased the MEF from approximately 6 to approximately 8.5 Hz, and the SEF from approximately 25.5 to approximately 27 Hz. At both 0.8 and 1.2 MAC halothane, similar patterns of EEG activation were observed with the 1 Hz, 3 Hz and tetanic stimulus trains, but not with 0.1 Hz stimulation, which does not evoke wind-up. Under propofol anaesthesia, noxious stimuli were generally ineffective in causing EEG activation. At 0.8 ED(50) propofol, only the tail clamp and 1 Hz stimuli increased MEF ( approximately 8 to approximately 10-10.5 Hz). At the higher propofol infusion rate (1.2 ED(50)) the repetitive electrical stimuli did not evoke an EEG response, but the tetanic stimulus and the tail clamp paradoxically decreased SEF (from approximately 23 to approximately 21.5 Hz).


CONCLUSIONS
Propofol has a more significant blunting effect on EEG responses to noxious stimulation compared with halothane.
Orth
M
M
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, 95616, USA.
Barter
L
L
Dominguez
C
C
Atherley
R
R
Carstens
E
E
Antognini
J F
JF
D018685:Anesthetics, Inhalation / Q000494:pharmacology*; D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous / Q000494:pharmacology*; D000818:Animals; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004558:Electric Stimulation; D004569:Electroencephalography / Q000187:drug effects*; D006221:Halothane / Q000494:pharmacology*; D008297:Male; D010146:Pain / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000517:prevention & control; D010812:Physical Stimulation; D015742:Propofol / Q000494:pharmacology*; D051381:Rats; D017207:Rats, Sprague-Dawley
D018685:Anesthetics, Inhalation; D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous; D006221:Halothane; D015742:Propofol