Anesthesiology

Skin temperature is best kept constant when determining response thresholds because both skin and core temperatures contribute to thermoregulatory control. In practice, however, it is difficult to evaluate both warm and cold thresholds while maintaining constant cutaneous temperature. A recent study shows that vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds are a linear function of skin and core temperatures, with skin contributing 20 +/- 6% and 19 +/- 8%, respectively. (Skin temperature has long been known to contribute approximately 10% to the control of sweating). Using these relations, we were able to experimentally manipulate both skin and core temperatures, subsequently compensate for the changes in skin temperature, and finally report the results in terms of calculated core-temperature thresholds at a single-designated skin temperature.

Five volunteers were each studied on 4 days: (1) control; (2) a target blood propofol concentration of 2 micrograms/ml; (3) a target concentration of 4 micrograms/ml; and (4) a target concentration of 8 micrograms/ml. On each day, we increased skin and core temperatures sufficiently to provoke sweating. Skin and core temperatures were subsequently reduced to elicit peripheral vasoconstriction and shivering. We mathematically compensated for changes in skin temperature by using the established linear cutaneous contributions to the control of sweating (10%) and to vasoconstriction and shivering (20%). From these calculated core-temperature thresholds (at a designated skin temperature of 35.7 degrees C), the propofol concentration-response curves for the sweating, vasoconstriction, and shivering thresholds were analyzed using linear regression. We validated this new method by comparing the concentration-dependent effects of propofol with those obtained previously with an established model.

The concentration-response slopes for sweating and vasoconstriction were virtually identical to those reported previously. Propofol significantly decreased the core temperature triggering vasoconstriction (slope = -0.6 +/- 0.1 degrees C.micrograms-1.ml-1; r2 = 0.98 +/- 0.02) and shivering (slope = -0.7 +/- 0.1 degrees C.micrograms -1.ml-1; r2 = 0.95 +/- 0.05). In contrast, increasing the blood propofol concentration increased the sweating threshold only slightly (slope = 0.1 +/- 0.1 degrees C.micrograms -1.ml-1; r2 = 0.46 +/- 0.39).

Advantages of this new model include its being nearly noninvasive and requiring relatively little core-temperature manipulation. Propofol only slightly alters the sweating threshold, but markedly reduces the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. Reductions in the shivering and vasoconstriction thresholds are similar; that is, the vasoconstriction-to-shivering range increases only slightly during anesthesia.

The contribution of mean skin temperature to the thresholds for sweating and active precapillary vasodilation has been evaluated in numerous human studies. In contrast, the contribution of skin temperature to the control of cold responses such as arteriovenous shunt vasoconstriction and shivering is less well established. Accordingly, the authors tested the hypothesis that mean skin and core temperatures are linearly related at the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds in men. Because the relation between skin and core temperatures might vary by gender, the cutaneous contribution to thermoregulatory control also was determined in women.

In the first portion of the study, six men participated on 5 randomly ordered days, during which mean skin temperatures were maintained near 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 degrees C. Core hypothermia was induced by central venous infusion of cold lactated Ringer's solution sufficient to induce peripheral vasoconstriction and shivering. The core-temperature thresholds were then plotted against skin temperature and a linear regression fit to the values. The relative skin and core contributions to the control of each response were calculated from the slopes of the regression equations. In the second portion of the study, six women participated on three randomly ordered days, during which mean skin temperatures were maintained near 31, 35, and 37 degrees C. At each designated skin temperature, core hypothermia sufficient to induce peripheral vasoconstriction and/or shivering was again induced by central venous infusion of cold lactated Ringer's solution. The cutaneous contributions to control of each response were then calculated from the skin- and core-temperature pairs at the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds.

There was a linear relation between mean skin and core temperatures at the response thresholds in the men: r = 0.90 +/- 0.06 for vasoconstriction and r = 0.94 +/- 0.07 for shivering. Skin temperature contributed 20 +/- 6% to vasoconstriction and 19 +/- 8% to shivering. Skin temperature in the women contributed to 18 +/- 4% to vasoconstriction and 18 +/- 7% to shivering, values not differing significantly from those in men. There was no apparent correlation between the cutaneous contributions to vasoconstriction and shivering in individual volunteers.

These data indicate that skin and core temperatures contribute linearly to the control of vasoconstriction and shivering in men and that the cutaneous contributions average approximately 20% in both men and women. The same coefficients thus can be used to compensate for experimental skin temperature manipulations in men and women. However, the cutaneous contributions to each response vary among volunteers; furthermore, the contributions to the two responses vary within volunteers.

Meperidine administration is a more effective treatment for shivering than equianalgesic doses of other opioids. However, it remains unknown whether meperidine also profoundly impairs other thermoregulatory responses, such as sweating or vasoconstriction. Proportional inhibition of vasoconstriction and shivering suggests that the drug acts much like alfentanil and anesthetics but possesses greater thermoregulatory than analgesic potency. In contrast, disproportionate inhibition would imply a special antishivering mechanism. Accordingly, the authors tested the hypothesis that meperidine administration produces a far greater concentration-dependent reduction in the shivering than vasoconstriction threshold.

Nine volunteers were each studied on three days: 1) control (no opioid); 2) a target total plasma meperidine concentration of 0.6 microgram/ml (40 mg/h); and 3) a target concentration of 1.8 micrograms/ml (120 mg/h). Each day, skin and core temperatures were increased to provoke sweating and then subsequently reduced to elicit vasoconstriction and shivering. Core-temperature thresholds (at a designated skin temperature of 34 degrees C) were computed using established linear cutaneous contributions to control sweating (10%) and vasoconstriction and shivering (20%). The dose-dependent effects of unbound meperidine on thermoregulatory response thresholds was then determined using linear regression. Results are presented as means +/- SDs.

The unbound meperidine fraction was approximately 35%. Meperidine administration slightly increased the sweating threshold (0.5 +/- 0.8 degree C.microgram-1.ml; r2 = 0.51 +/- 0.37) and markedly decreased the vasoconstriction threshold (-3.3 +/- 1.5 degrees C.microgram-1.ml; r2 = 0.92 +/- 0.08). However, meperidine reduced the shivering threshold nearly twice as much as the vasoconstriction threshold (-6.1 +/- 3.0 degrees C.microgram-1.ml; r2 = 0.97 +/- 0.05; P = 0.001).

The special antishivering efficacy of meperidine results at least in part from an uncharacteristically large reduction in the shivering threshold rather than from exaggerated generalized thermoregulatory inhibition. This pattern of thermoregulatory impairment differs from that produced by alfentanil, clonidine, propofol, and the volatile anesthetics, all which reduce the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably.

cis-9,10-Octadecenoamide (cOA) accumulates in cerebrospinal fluid during sleep deprivation and induces sleep in animals, but its cellular actions are poorly characterized. In earlier studies, like a variety of anesthetics, cOA modulated gamma-aminobutyric acidA receptors and inhibited transmitter release/burst firing in cultured neurones or synaptoneurosomes.

Here, radioligand binding ([3H]batrachotoxinin A 20-alpha-benzoate and mouse central nervous system synaptoneurosomes) and voltage clamp (whole cell recording from cultured NIE115 murine neuroblastoma) confirmed an interaction with neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC).

cOA stereoselectively inhibited specific binding of toxin to VGSC (inhibitor concentration that displaces 50% of specifically bound radioligand, 39.5 microm). cOA increased (4x) the Kd of toxin binding without affecting its binding maximum. Rate of dissociation of radioligand was increased without altering association kinetics, suggesting an allosteric effect (indirect competition at site 2 on VGSC). cOA blocked tetrodotoxin-sensitive sodium currents (maximal effect and affinity were significantly greater at depolarized potentials; P < 0.01). Between 3.2 and 64 microm, the block was concentration-dependent and saturable, but cOA did not alter the V50 for activation curves or the measured reversal potential (P > 0.05). Inactivation curves were significantly shifted in the hyperpolarizing direction by cOA (maximum, -15.4 +/- 0.9 mV at 32 microm). cOA (10 microm) slowed recovery from inactivation, with tau increasing from 3.7 +/- 0.4 ms to 6.4 +/- 0.5 ms (P < 0.001). cOA did not produce frequency-dependent facilitation of block (up to 10 Hz).

These effects (and the capacity of oleamide to modulate gamma-aminobutyric acidA receptors in earlier studies) are strikingly similar to those of a variety of anesthetics. Oleamide may represent an endogenous ligand for depressant drug sites in mammalian brain.