ChessMaster3000

7+ Year Member
Mar 7, 2010
739
217
Status
High blood/gas partition coefficient is proportional to arterial-venous concentration gradient. This results in SLOW onset of action. This also results in high tissue uptake and thus low MAC.

Where does lipid/gas coefficient fit into all of this?

thanks!
 

Phloston

Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 17, 2012
3,660
1,350
Osaka, Japan
I was trying to write a response, but for some reason the text wasn't loading and I was forced to put my response in a word document for you.

Hope that helps,
 

Attachments

OP
C

ChessMaster3000

7+ Year Member
Mar 7, 2010
739
217
Status
s
I was trying to write a response, but for some reason the text wasn't loading and I was forced to put my response in a word document for you.

Hope that helps,
Phloston, that was fantastic, and answered everything I needed. I hope it didn't take too much of your time. Thanks.
 
OP
C

ChessMaster3000

7+ Year Member
Mar 7, 2010
739
217
Status
I wanted to take the discussion one step further--if an anesthetic has a high AV concentration gradient, it means it has high uptake in PERIPHERAL tissues, not the brain. Because of this, onset of action is slower. Correct?

I had been thinking the high AV conc gradient also applied to the brain, and therefore more anesthetic would be extracted from the circulation into the brain, but apparently this is not the case, according to UW. Just wanted to clarify.
 
OP
C

ChessMaster3000

7+ Year Member
Mar 7, 2010
739
217
Status
Just wanted to revisit this issue, because another question came up. I thought I understood it, but I think there's one more gap to fill. Potency has NOTHING to do with onset of action. However, in practical terms, would it be fair to say that test questions consider a high AV gradient to have a slow onset of action? If you look at qid 660 on UW, you might see why I'm having this question. They basically relate high AV concentration gradient to slow onset of action, when in Phloston's word doc, this should have nothing to do with onset of action.
 
Jun 11, 2012
341
46
Status
Medical Student
you need to go further with this because I dont know what they asked though I recall the q
Just wanted to revisit this issue, because another question came up. I thought I understood it, but I think there's one more gap to fill. Potency has NOTHING to do with onset of action. However, in practical terms, would it be fair to say that test questions consider a high AV gradient to have a slow onset of action? If you look at qid 660 on UW, you might see why I'm having this question. They basically relate high AV concentration gradient to slow onset of action, when in Phloston's word doc, this should have nothing to do with onset of action.