B Walder1, P M Suter, J A Romand. 1. Department APSIC, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland. Bernard.Walder@hcuge.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Processed EEG monitoring has been suggested for sedation depth evaluation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The present study investigated the efficacy of two processed EEG monitors using SEF90% or SEF95% and BIS to differentiate between conscious (Ramsay score 4) and unconscious sedation (Ramsay score 6). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized trial in a surgical ICU of a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients recovering from elective coronary bypass grafting. INTERVENTION: One of two EEG analyzers was installed (A: Aspect A-1000 measuring SEF95% and BIS; D: Drager pEEG measuring SEF90%). At ICU admission unconscious sedation (Ramsay score 6), and at three 30-min intervals conscious sedation (Ramsay score 4) were investigated. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:Fourteen patients were monitored by A and 14 by D. The interindividual variability (coefficient of variation 32-69 %) was large for all three processed EEG methods. SEF90% of analyzer D and BIS of analyzer A showed a statistically significant difference between unconscious and conscious sedation (11 +/- 3 and 17 +/- 6 Hz, p = 0.005; 74 +/- 10 and 83 +/- 10, p = 0.02). Positive and negative predictive values for SEF90% of analyzer D (0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.77; and 0.92, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) and BIS of analyzer A (0.55, 95 % CI 0.32-0.76; and 0.87, 95 % CI 0.60-0.98) were too low for discrimination between conscious and unconscious sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of processed EEG monitoring cannot be recommended for assessing sedation depth after cardiac surgery.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Processed EEG monitoring has been suggested for sedation depth evaluation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The present study investigated the efficacy of two processed EEG monitors using SEF90% or SEF95% and BIS to differentiate between conscious (Ramsay score 4) and unconscious sedation (Ramsay score 6). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized trial in a surgical ICU of a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients recovering from elective coronary bypass grafting. INTERVENTION: One of two EEG analyzers was installed (A: Aspect A-1000 measuring SEF95% and BIS; D: Drager pEEG measuring SEF90%). At ICU admission unconscious sedation (Ramsay score 6), and at three 30-min intervals conscious sedation (Ramsay score 4) were investigated. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Fourteen patients were monitored by A and 14 by D. The interindividual variability (coefficient of variation 32-69 %) was large for all three processed EEG methods. SEF90% of analyzer D and BIS of analyzer A showed a statistically significant difference between unconscious and conscious sedation (11 +/- 3 and 17 +/- 6 Hz, p = 0.005; 74 +/- 10 and 83 +/- 10, p = 0.02). Positive and negative predictive values for SEF90% of analyzer D (0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.77; and 0.92, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) and BIS of analyzer A (0.55, 95 % CI 0.32-0.76; and 0.87, 95 % CI 0.60-0.98) were too low for discrimination between conscious and unconscious sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of processed EEG monitoring cannot be recommended for assessing sedation depth after cardiac surgery.
Authors: Carmen Hernández-Gancedo; David Pestaña; Hanna Pérez-Chrzanowska; Elena Martinez-Casanova; Antonio Criado Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2007-08-16 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Susan T Herman; Nicholas S Abend; Thomas P Bleck; Kevin E Chapman; Frank W Drislane; Ronald G Emerson; Elizabeth E Gerard; Cecil D Hahn; Aatif M Husain; Peter W Kaplan; Suzette M LaRoche; Marc R Nuwer; Mark Quigg; James J Riviello; Sarah E Schmitt; Liberty A Simmons; Tammy N Tsuchida; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Matsuyuki Doi; Koji Morita; Haralambos Mantzaridis; Shigehito Sato; Gavin N C Kenny Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matthias Haenggi; Heidi Ypparila-Wolters; Christine Bieri; Carola Steiner; Jukka Takala; Ilkka Korhonen; Stephan M Jakob Journal: Crit Care Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Matthias Haenggi; Heidi Ypparila-Wolters; Kathrin Hauser; Claudio Caviezel; Jukka Takala; Ilkka Korhonen; Stephan M Jakob Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 9.097