Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025

Assessing Changes in Volatile General Anesthetic Sensitivity of Mice after Local or Systemic Pharmacological Intervention
Published on: October 16, 2013
Schnider and Eleveld Models for Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion Anesthesia: A Clinical Comparison
Federico Linassi1,2, Paolo Zanatta2, Leonardo Spano3
1Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Università Degli Studi di Padova, Via Marzolo 5, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Background:
Various pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models have been developed to accurately dose propofol administration during total intravenous anesthesia with target-controlled infusion (TIVA-TCI). We aim to clinically compare the performance of the Schnider model and the new and general-purpose Eleveld PK/PD model during TIVA-TCI.
Methods:
We conducted a prospective observational study at a single center, enrolling 78 female patients, including 37 adults (aged < 65 years) and 41 elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). These patients underwent breast surgery with propofol-remifentanil TIVA-TCI guided by the bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (target value 40-60) and the surgical plethysmographic index (SPI) for antinociception monitoring (target value 20-50) without neuromuscular blockade. The concentration at the effect site of propofol (CeP) at loss of responsiveness (LoR) during anesthesia maintenance (MA) and at return of responsiveness (RoR), the duration of surgery and anesthesia (min), the time to RoR (min), the propofol total dose (mg), the deepening of anesthesia events (DAEs), burst suppression events (BSEs), light anesthesia events (LAEs) and unwanted spontaneous responsiveness events (USREs) were considered to compare the two PK/PD models.
Results:
Patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD model showed a lower CeP at LoR (1.7 (1.36-2.25) vs. 3.60 (3.00-4.18) μg/mL, p < 0.001), higher CePMA (2.80 (2.55-3.40) vs. 2.30 (1.80-2.50) μg/mL, p < 0.001) and at RoR (1.48 (1.08-1.80) vs. 0.64 (0.55-0.81) μg/mL, p < 0.001) than with the Schnider PK/PD model. Anesthetic hysteresis was observed only in the Schnider PK/PD model group (p < 0.001). DAEs (69.2% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.001) and BSEs (28.2% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.013) were more frequent with the Eleveld PK/PD model than with the Schnider PK/PD model in the general patient population. DAEs (63.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.030) and BSEs (31.6% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.036) were more frequent with the Eleveld PK/PD model than with the Schnider PK/PD model in the elderly.
Conclusions:
The Schnider and Eleveld PK/PD models impact CePs differently. A greater incidence of DAEs and BSEs in the elderly suggests more attention is necessary in this group of patients undergoing BIS-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI with the Eleveld PK/PD than with the Schnider model.
Related Concept Videos
Parenteral Anesthetics: Overview
One-Compartment Open Model for IV Bolus Administration: General Considerations
The drug's presence in the body is defined by an equation representing the difference between the rates of drug entry and exit. Key parameters—elimination rate constant,...
General Anesthesia: Overview
General anesthesia induces unconsciousness in the whole body, while the others target specific areas or sensations. It is administered to minimize adverse effects, maintain...
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Stages of General Anesthesia
Inhalational Anesthetics: Overview

