1999
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199903000-00039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of General Anesthetics on Excitatory and Inhibitory Synaptic Transmission in Area CA1 of the Rat Hippocampus In Vitro

Abstract: Volatile anesthetics modulate both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission of in vitro rat hippocampal pathways, whereas i.v. anesthetics produce more specific actions on inhibitory synaptic events. These results provide further support the idea that general anesthetics produce drug-specific and distinctive effects on different pathways in the central nervous system.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
41
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
4
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous brain slice studies have used from 0.2 ⌴ (Antkowiak 1999) to 500 ⌴ (Wakasugi et al 1999). We found propofol effects at 5 and 10 ⌴ (Figs.…”
Section: Concentration Of Propofolmentioning
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous brain slice studies have used from 0.2 ⌴ (Antkowiak 1999) to 500 ⌴ (Wakasugi et al 1999). We found propofol effects at 5 and 10 ⌴ (Figs.…”
Section: Concentration Of Propofolmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Determination of the appropriate concentration of propofol for use in in vitro experiments, particularly brain slice experiments, has been quite difficult, with previous studies using from 0.2 ⌴ (Antkowiak 1999) to 500 ⌴ (Wakasugi et al 1999). We chose a nominal concentration of 30 ⌴ for the majority of experiments based on several considerations, including 1) the excellent correlation across a range of anesthetics (e.g., volatile and barbiturates) between in vitro anesthetic concentrations that suppress CA1 field population spikes (fPS) and clinically relevant in vivo anesthetic concentrations (MacIver 1997) coupled with our previous finding that 30 ⌴ propofol suppresses the CA1 fPS to a similar degree as inhalational anesthetics at clinical concentrations (Turnquist et al 2002); 2) the fact that the concentration of propofol in the slice at the end of our typical drug application period (40 min) is much lower than the applied bath concentration (5-30 ⌴) because steady-state propofol effects require Ͼ300 min of application (see DISCUSSION for details); and 3) the desire to use an adequate concentration of propofol to assay for several possible previously described sites of action, which exhibit somewhat lower affinities for propofol [e.g., sodium channels (Ratnakumari and Hemmings 1997;Rehberg and Duch 1999)].…”
Section: R E S U L T Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rainey et al [6] has used it in autistic children to reduce their delirium. Midazolam is known to possess a synergistic effect with propofol [34][35][36]. Indeed, Midazolam dose did not show a statistically significant difference between groups of children but there was a significant negative correlation between it and the log propofol dose which is expected since children receiving a bigger dose of any sedative would need a relatively smaller dose of the other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…A number of studies also implicated GABA A receptors in ketamine anesthesia (Scholfield, 1980;Gage and Robertson, 1985;Bennett et al, 1988;Irifune et al, 1992Irifune et al, , 2000Lin et al, 1992;Wakasugi et al, 1999), although these provided either indirect evidence for the action of ketamine on GABA A receptors, or the concentration of ketamine used was significantly higher than the anesthetically relevant concentration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%