Reinforcing, subjective, and psychomotor effects of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in moderate-drinking healthy volunteers

Citation
Jp. Zacny et al., Reinforcing, subjective, and psychomotor effects of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in moderate-drinking healthy volunteers, ADDICTION, 94(12), 1999, pp. 1817-1828
Citations number
32
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Clinical Psycology & Psychiatry
Journal title
ADDICTION
ISSN journal
09652140 → ACNP
Volume
94
Issue
12
Year of publication
1999
Pages
1817 - 1828
Database
ISI
SICI code
0965-2140(199912)94:12<1817:RSAPEO>2.0.ZU;2-S
Abstract
Aims. To characterize the reinforcing, subjective and psychomotor effects o f sevoflurane, a volatile anesthetic, across a range of subanesthetic conce ntrations in non-drug-abusing humans. In addition, a concentration of nitro us oxide was included in the design in order to compare and contrast behavi oral effects of a gaseous to a volatile anesthesic. Design. Repeated measur es, double-blind, placebo control experiment. Setting. Human psychopharmaco logy laboratory. Participants. Fourteen moderate-drinking healthy volunteer s. Intervention. In each of four sessions, subjects first sampled placebo-o xygen and an active drug (end-tidal concentrations of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6% sevofl urane and 30% nitrous oxide in oxygen) and then chose between the two. Meas urements. Mood and psychomotor performance during the sampling trials, and choice of drug or placebo-oxygen during choice trial. Findings. Nitrous oxi de was chosen by 71% of the subjects, and 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6% sevoflurane wer e chosen by 50%, 57% and 50% of the subjects, respectively. Neither drug wa s chosen at levels that exceeded that of chance. Sevoflurane and nitrous ox ide both impaired psychomotor performance and produced changes in mood. The re were several differences in subjective effects between sevoflurane and n itrous oxide at concentrations which were considered to be equivalent in an esthetic effect. Finally, although sevoflurane did not function as a reinfo rcer in the majority of individuals tested, there was evidence that sevoflu rane functioned as a reinforcer in some volunteers: subjects who chose to i nhale sevoflurane over placebo-oxygen tended to report a positive spectrum of subjective effects during the sevoflurane sampling trial, relative to th ose subjects who chose placebo-oxygen over sevoflurane. Conclusions. Althou gh sevoflurane did not function as a reinforcer in the majority of subjects tested, the correspondence between positive subjective effects of sevoflur ane and subsequent sevoflurane choice suggests that the volatile anesthetic drug can function as a reinforcer in some moderate drinkers.