Literature DB >> 15502043

Is the patient state analyzer with the PSArray2 a cost-effective alternative to the bispectral index monitor during the perioperative period?

Paul F White1, Jun Tang, Hong Ma, Ronald H Wender, Alexander Sloninsky, Robert Kariger.   

Abstract

New disposable electrodes, the PSArray and XP sensor, have been developed for the patient state analyzer (PSA) and the bispectral index (BIS) monitors, respectively. We designed this clinical study to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the patient state index (PSI) with the BIS during the perioperative period when the new electrode sensors were used. Twenty-two consenting patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic procedures were enrolled in this prospective study. The elapsed time to apply electrodes and obtain a baseline index value was recorded, as were the comparative PSI and BIS values at specific time intervals during the induction, maintenance, and emergence periods in patients who were administered a standardized general anesthetic. In addition, the changes in these indices were recorded after a bolus dose of propofol (20 mg IV) or a 2% increase or decrease in the inspired concentration of desflurane during the maintenance period. The total elapsed time to obtain an index value was similar with both devices (66 +/- 32 s versus 72 +/- 41 s for the PSA and BIS, respectively). By using logistic regression models, both the BIS and PSI were found to be equally effective as predictors of unconsciousness (i.e., failure to respond to verbal stimuli). The PSI also correlated with the BIS during both the induction of (R = 0.85) and the emergence from (R = 0.74) general anesthesia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detection of consciousness also indicated a similar performance with the PSI (0.98 +/- 0.05) and the BIS (0.97 +/- 0.05). During the maintenance period, the PSI values tended to be lower than the BIS value; however, the responses to changes in propofol and desflurane were similar. Finally, the PSI (versus BIS) values showed less interference from the electrocautery unit during the operation (31% versus 73%, respectively). Although the list price of the PSArray(2) disposable electrode strip (USD $24.95) was higher than that of the BIS XP sensor (USD $17.50), the average sale price (USD $14.95) was identical for both electrode systems. Therefore, we conclude that the PSA monitor with the PSArray(2) is a cost-effective alternative to the BIS monitor with the XP sensor for evaluating consciousness during the induction of and emergence from general anesthesia, as well as for titrating propofol and desflurane during the maintenance period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15502043     DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000132784.57622.CC

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  6 in total

Review 1.  Using EEG to monitor anesthesia drug effects during surgery.

Authors:  Leslie C Jameson; Tod B Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.502

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

Review 3.  [Measurement of the depth of anaesthesia].

Authors:  G N Schmidt; J Müller; P Bischoff
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  The Patient State Index is well balanced for propofol sedation.

Authors:  K H Lee; Y H Kim; Y J Sung; M K Oh
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 0.471

5.  SNAP II versus BIS VISTA monitor comparison during general anesthesia.

Authors:  Candace Hrelec; Erika Puente; Sergio Bergese; Roger Dzwonczyk
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 2.502

6.  Validation of the patient State Index for monitoring sedation state in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Masafumi Idei; Yusuke Seino; Nobuo Sato; Takuya Yoshida; Yumi Saishu; Kimiya Fukui; Masahiro Iwabuchi; Junya Ishikawa; Kei Ota; Daigo Kamei; Masashi Nakagawa; Takeshi Nomura
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 2.502

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.