Back

Physicochemical compatibility and stability of urapidil-propofol admixtures during simulated Y-site Administration

Yue, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, Y.; Zhao, J.; Lou, L.; Feng, S.; Zhao, L.

2026-09-14 pharmacology and toxicology
10.64898/2026.09.07.749885 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background/Objectives: Urapidil with propofol is clinically efficient against elevated blood pressure during sedation. However, their physicochemical compatibility and emulsion stability upon continuous infusion remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate different mixing ratios and diluents, thereby proving the safety limits for their co-administration. Methods: Urapidil solutions prepared with either sodium chloride (NS) or glucose injection (GS), and emulsified with propofol at different ratios (v/v), were stored for 12 h. Physical compatibility was assessed by visual inspection, pH, osmolality, mean droplet diameter (MDD), polydispersity index (PDI), zeta potential, and percentage of fat globules larger than 5 m (PFAT5). Chemical stability was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Results: pH and osmolality stabilized. Urapidil hydrochloride and propofol contents remained pure at > 95%, MDD was < 500 nm, and PDI was < 0.2. Urapidil proportion in NS was significantly negatively correlated with the zeta potential. PFAT5 was > 0.05% after 2-8 h. In contrast, in GS at a 1:2 ratio, PFAT5 remained < 0.05%, which increased slightly in the 1:1 group at 8 h. PFAT5 stabilized in the high-propofol group (10:1) under all conditions. Conclusions: The chemical compatibility of the admixture was acceptable after 12 h of storage. However, physical compatibility was influenced by the mixing ratio, diluent type, and storage time. For clinical Y-site co-administration, a 10:1 mixing ratio or dilution in 5% GS is recommended. Enhanced proportions must be mixed with NS, while continuous infusion time must be < 2 h to mitigate fat embolism risk.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.