z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Effects of Remimazolam and Propofol on Ca2+ Regulation by Ryanodine Receptor 1 with Malignant Hyperthermia Mutation
Author(s) -
Tomoyuki Watanabe,
Hirotsugu Miyoshi,
Yuko Noda,
Soshi Narasaki,
Atsushi Morio,
Yukari Toyota,
Hiroshi Kimura,
Keiko Mukaida,
Toshimichi Yasuda,
Yasuo Tsutsumi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
biomed research international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.772
H-Index - 126
eISSN - 2314-6141
pISSN - 2314-6133
DOI - 10.1155/2021/8845129
Subject(s) - ryr1 , ryanodine receptor , propofol , hek 293 cells , malignant hyperthermia , pharmacology , wild type , mutant , chemistry , caffeine , receptor , medicine , biochemistry , anesthesia , gene
Background We investigated the potential safety of remimazolam and propofol in malignant hyperthermia- (HM-) susceptible patients using ryanodine receptor 1- (RYR1-) expressing human embryonic kidney- (HEK-) 293 cells.Methods We compared the enhanced responsiveness of HEK-293 cells expressing wild-type RYR1 with that of mutant RYR1 to caffeine following perfusion with remimazolam or propofol. Furthermore, we investigated whether RYR1 enhanced the responsiveness of cells to remimazolam or propofol and compared the median effective concentration (EC 50 ; i.e., the concentration required to reach half-maximal activation) using an unpaired two-tailed t -test while a P < 0.05 was considered significant.Results Remimazolam and propofol did not promote the caffeine-induced increase in intracellular Ca 2+ levels in HEK-293 cells expressing mutant RYR1 even with exposure to approximately 100-fold the clinically used concentration. In wild-type RYR1, EC 50 values of remimazolam following refusion vs. nonperfusion were 2.86 mM vs. 2.75 mM ( P = 0.76) while for propofol perfusion vs. nonperfusion, they were 2.76 mM vs. 2.75 mM, respectively ( P = 0.83). In mutant RYR1, EC 50 values of remimazolam refusion vs. nonperfusion were 1.58 mM vs. 1.71 mM, respectively ( P = 0.63) while for propofol perfusion vs. nonperfusion, they were 1.65 mM vs. 1.71 mM, respectively ( P = 0.73). Remimazolam and propofol increased intracellular Ca 2+ levels in a concentration-dependent manner, but the effect was not enhanced by RYR1. EC 50 values of remimazolam with non-RYR1 vs. wild-type RYR1 were 1.00 mM vs. 0.92 mM, respectively ( P = 0.91) while those of propofol were 1.09 mM vs. 1.05 mM, respectively ( P = 0.84).Conclusions The increase in intracellular Ca 2+ concentration caused by remimazolam or propofol was not considered an RYR1-mediated reaction. We conclude that remimazolam and propofol can be safely used as an anesthetic in MH-susceptible patients with RYR1 -mutation without causing MH and may be safely substituted for an MH-triggering anesthetic when RYR1-mediated MH occurs.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom