Background: Potency of inhaled anesthetics (minimum alveolar concentration
[MAC]) is typically studied in humans using an "up-down" approach in which
the (quantal) response to skin Incision is assessed only once for each indi
vidual, so that each Individual's MAC is never determined. The authors exam
ined the Influence of interindividual variability and study design issues (
e.g., the number of patients enrolled in a study) on the accuracy of MAC es
timates.
Methods: The typical sequence of a MAC study was simulated. The authors var
ied and tested the impact of several factors: anesthetic concentration used
to start a study; number of "crossovers" (successive patients having diffe
rent responses to skin incision) to terminate a study; concentration increm
ent between consecutive patients; interindividual variability; and "measure
ment error." For each factor, simulations were replicated 500 times, and th
e resulting estimates were summarized.
Results: Starting an experiment below or above the "true" value led to slig
htly biased MAC estimates; in contrast, variability was underestimated with
starting concentrations close to the true value. More than six crossovers
improved MAC estimates minimally but increased variability estimates toward
true values. A larger increment size affected MAC minimally and increased
variability estimates toward true values. A larger Interindividual variabil
ity led to more "outlier" estimates for MAC. Under many conditions, several
of 500 replicates yielded MAC estimates that deviated more than 10% or eve
n more than 25% from the "true" value.
Conclusion: Individual experiments may yield inaccurate MAC estimates. This
inaccuracy is minimized as the number of crossovers increases; however, im
provement diminishes as the number of crossovers exceeds six.