Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cervin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lindberg, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cervin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lindberg, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 80, Issue 4 475-480, Copyright © 1998 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia


LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

Changes in mucociliary activity may be used to investigate the airway- irritating potency of volatile anaesthetics

A. Cervin and S. Lindberg
Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, S-221 85, Lund, Sweden

We have examined the short-term effects of three volatile anaesthetics, halothane, isoflurane and desflurane, on mucociliary activity in the rabbit maxillary sinus in vivo. Mucociliary activity was recorded photoelectrically and the signal processed by fast Fourier transformation. Administration of 1.0 MAC of halothane, isoflurane or desflurane caused a temporary increase in mucociliary activity, with mean peak responses of 47.8 (SEM 13.0)%, 44.0 (9.6)% and 45.1 (23.7)% (n = 6), respectively. The response to all three compounds was biphasic; an initial peak was observed within 2 min and a second peak at 3-8 min. The second response was not significant for halothane. In contrast, desflurane produced a significant second peak while the first was small and failed to reach significance. Halothane displayed an initial peak within 2 min which was blocked by atropine but not by the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist CP-99. The second peak at 3-5 min was less pronounced for halothane than for isoflurane or desflurane. The second peak was not affected by atropine pretreatment, but was blocked by pretreatment with CP-99. A combination of atropine and CP-99 pretreatment abolished the mucociliary response to halothane. Atropine pretreatment did not affect, whereas CP-99 significantly reduced, the response to desflurane. We conclude that the NK1-mediated response was most pronounced for desflurane which is considered the most airway irritating compound of the three. It is likely that the size of the NK1-mediated response reflects the airway-irritating properties of the volatile anaesthetic used.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
J.-I. Satoh, M. Yamakage, T. Kobayashi, N. Tohse, H. Watanabe, and A. Namiki
Desflurane but not sevoflurane can increase lung resistance via tachykinin pathways
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2009; 102(5): 704 - 713.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
J. K. Kim, H. Y. Yoo, S. J. Kim, Y.-S. Hwang, J. Han, J. A. Kim, C. S. Kim, and H. S. Cho
Effects of sevoflurane on the cAMP-induced short-circuit current in mouse tracheal epithelium and recombinant Cl- (CFTR) and K+ (KCNQ1) channels
Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2007; 99(2): 245 - 251.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. Matsuura, G. Shirakami, H. Iida, K. Tanimoto, and K. Fukuda
The effect of sevoflurane on ciliary motility in rat cultured tracheal epithelial cells: a comparison with isoflurane and halothane.
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2006; 102(6): 1703 - 1708.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.