OBJECTIVE: Bispectral index (BIS) is being evaluated as a monitor of consciousness, yet it is unclear what components of consciousness (i.e., arousal vs. content of consciousness) the BIS measures. This study compared BIS levels to well-validated clinical measures of arousal and the presence or absence of delirium. DESIGN: A prospective, blinded, observational cohort study. PATIENTS: 124 mechanically ventilated, adult, medical ICU patients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Using BIS 3.4 and BIS-XP 4.0 algorithms, BIS values were calculated immediately prior to clinical assessments. The clinical assessments included the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and presence or absence of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. A total of 484 assessments were collected among 124 patients. BIS-XP values demonstrated greater correlation with RASS than BIS 3.4 ( R(2)=0.36 vs. 0.20), although considerable overlap of BIS-XP scores remained across RASS levels. Median BIS-XP values for delirious and nondelirious observations were 74 and 96, respectively, while BIS 3.4 values were 91 and 96, respectively. However, neither BIS 3.4 nor BIS-XP were significantly associated with delirium after controlling for RASS value. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with clinical measures of arousal in mechanically ventilated patients, BIS-XP algorithm demonstrated stronger correlation with RASS levels than did BIS 3.4, yet marked overlap across different levels of arousal persist using both algorithms. After controlling for level of arousal, neither BIS-XP nor BIS 3.4 algorithms distinguished between the presence and absence of delirium.
OBJECTIVE: Bispectral index (BIS) is being evaluated as a monitor of consciousness, yet it is unclear what components of consciousness (i.e., arousal vs. content of consciousness) the BIS measures. This study compared BIS levels to well-validated clinical measures of arousal and the presence or absence of delirium. DESIGN: A prospective, blinded, observational cohort study. PATIENTS: 124 mechanically ventilated, adult, medical ICU patients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Using BIS 3.4 and BIS-XP 4.0 algorithms, BIS values were calculated immediately prior to clinical assessments. The clinical assessments included the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and presence or absence of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. A total of 484 assessments were collected among 124 patients. BIS-XP values demonstrated greater correlation with RASS than BIS 3.4 ( R(2)=0.36 vs. 0.20), although considerable overlap of BIS-XP scores remained across RASS levels. Median BIS-XP values for delirious and nondelirious observations were 74 and 96, respectively, while BIS 3.4 values were 91 and 96, respectively. However, neither BIS 3.4 nor BIS-XP were significantly associated with delirium after controlling for RASS value. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with clinical measures of arousal in mechanically ventilated patients, BIS-XP algorithm demonstrated stronger correlation with RASS levels than did BIS 3.4, yet marked overlap across different levels of arousal persist using both algorithms. After controlling for level of arousal, neither BIS-XP nor BIS 3.4 algorithms distinguished between the presence and absence of delirium.
Authors: Benoit Vivien; Xavier Paqueron; Philippe Le Cosquer; Olivier Langeron; Pierre Coriat; Bruno Riou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Stanley A Nasraway SA; Eugene C Wu; Ruth M Kelleher; Cynthia M Yasuda; Anne M Donnelly Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Lynn McNicoll; Margaret A Pisani; Ying Zhang; E Wesley Ely; Mark D Siegel; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Konstanze Plaschke; Philipp Fichtenkamm; Christoph Schramm; Steffen Hauth; Eike Martin; Markus Verch; Matthias Karck; Jürgen Kopitz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Eric B Milbrandt; Basil Eldadah; Susan Nayfield; Evan Hadley; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440
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: John W Devlin; Gilles L Fraser; Aaron M Joffe; Richard R Riker; Yoanna Skrobik Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Claire M Motyl; Long Ngo; Wenxiao Zhou; Yoojin Jung; Douglas Leslie; Marie Boltz; Erica Husser; Sharon K Inouye; Donna Fick; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Pratik Pandharipande; Bryan A Cotton; Ayumi Shintani; Jennifer Thompson; Brenda Truman Pun; John A Morris; Robert Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: J Trauma Date: 2008-07
Authors: Jan N M Schieveld; Judith A van der Valk; Inge Smeets; Eline Berghmans; Renske Wassenberg; Piet L M N Leroy; Gijs D Vos; Jim van Os Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 17.440