Literature DB >> 12904186

Automated responsiveness test and bispectral index monitoring during propofol and propofol/N2O sedation.

A G Doufas1, M Bakhshandeh, G S Haugh, A R Bjorksten, R Greif, D I Sessler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sedation practice, especially when non-anaesthesia personnel are involved, requires efficient anaesthetic depth monitoring. Therefore, we used prediction probability (PK) to evaluate the performance of the bispectral index (BIS) of the EEG and automated responsiveness test (ART) to predict sedation depth and loss of subject's responsiveness during propofol sedation, with and without N2O.
METHODS: Twenty volunteers were studied during propofol administration with (N2O) and without (Air) N2O. The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles. After a control period, propofol was infused to a target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg/ml (N2O) or 1.5 microg/ml (Air), which was subsequently increased by 0.25 or 0.5 microg/ml, respectively, until loss of responsiveness was detected by loss of response to command [observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score <or= 2].
RESULTS: Deeply sedated patients did not respond to ART indicating that the sensitivity was 1.0 with or without N2O. The specificity of ART was 0.24 with Air and 0.98 with N2O. The BIS was better than ART in predicting OAA/S score (PK = 0.84 vs. 0.77) and loss of responsiveness (PK = 0.87 vs. 0.69) during the Air trial. Nitrous oxide decreased the performance of BIS in predicting OAA/S score (PK = 0.76), but increased the performance of ART to predict loss of responsiveness (PK = 0.85).
CONCLUSION: BIS and ART comparably predict sedation and loss of responsiveness. However, ART, because of its resistance to false-normal responses, might prove to be more useful on an individual patient basis - especially in the presence of agents that impair BIS sensitivity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12904186     DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00184.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-5172            Impact factor:   2.105


  5 in total

1.  Induction speed is not a determinant of propofol pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  Anthony G Doufas; Maryam Bakhshandeh; Andrew R Bjorksten; Steven L Shafer; Daniel I Sessler
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Comparison of electrophysiologic monitors with clinical assessment of level of sedation.

Authors:  Christopher J Chisholm; Joseph Zurica; Dmitry Mironov; Robert R Sciacca; Eugene Ornstein; Eric J Heyer
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Sedation depth during spinal anesthesia and the development of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture repair.

Authors:  Frederick E Sieber; Khwaji J Zakriya; Allan Gottschalk; Mary-Rita Blute; Hochang B Lee; Paul B Rosenberg; Simon C Mears
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 4.  Molecular Diversity of Anesthetic Actions Is Evident in Electroencephalogram Effects in Humans and Animals.

Authors:  Sarah Eagleman; M Bruce MacIver
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Remifentanil and Nitrous Oxide Anesthesia Produces a Unique Pattern of EEG Activity During Loss and Recovery of Response.

Authors:  Sarah L Eagleman; Caitlin M Drover; David R Drover; Nicholas T Ouellette; M Bruce MacIver
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.169

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.