OBJECTIVE: Processed EEG monitoring during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may help determine loss of consciousness and depth of anesthesia. This study compared the SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista monitors in patients undergoing isoflurane anesthesia with normothermic CPB. METHODS: 40 subjects undergoing CPB with isoflurane anesthesia were enrolled. Subjects were premedicated with 1-2 mg midazolam approximately 5 min prior to acquisition of baseline index values and anesthesia induced with midazolam and fentanyl. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane, midazolam, and fentanyl and a cis-atracurium infusion. SNAP(™) II (version 1.2.9 algorithm 1.88) and BIS Vista (application version 3.00 platform version 2.03) indices were recorded at baseline, pre-induction, post-intubation, incision, start of CPB, every 15 min during CPB, end of CPB, and end of case. Agreement between methods was determined using Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman method with repeated observa- tions. RESULTS: Twenty-four male and 12 female subjects completed the analysis. The correlation between SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista index values was 0.61 (P < 0.005). A linear relationship between the difference in the indices and the average index values was observed following the induction of anesthesia. In awake subjects, the bias between the SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista was 5 (95% CI 3-7). The limits of agreement were 23 (95% CI 19-26) and -13 (95% CI -9--16). During anesthesia, the mean difference on a log scale was 0.11 (95% CI 0.09-0.12). The limits of agreement were 0.43 (95% CI 0.40-0.45) and -0.21 (95% CI -0.18--0.24). The antilog of the mean difference demonstrated that the SNAP(™) II value was 28% (95% CI 24-33%) higher than the BIS Vista value following induction of anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAP(™) II monitor demonstrates a consistently positive bias during cardiopulmonary bypass under isoflurane anesthesia compared with the BIS Vista.
OBJECTIVE: Processed EEG monitoring during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may help determine loss of consciousness and depth of anesthesia. This study compared the SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista monitors in patients undergoing isoflurane anesthesia with normothermic CPB. METHODS: 40 subjects undergoing CPB with isoflurane anesthesia were enrolled. Subjects were premedicated with 1-2 mg midazolam approximately 5 min prior to acquisition of baseline index values and anesthesia induced with midazolam and fentanyl. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane, midazolam, and fentanyl and a cis-atracurium infusion. SNAP(™) II (version 1.2.9 algorithm 1.88) and BIS Vista (application version 3.00 platform version 2.03) indices were recorded at baseline, pre-induction, post-intubation, incision, start of CPB, every 15 min during CPB, end of CPB, and end of case. Agreement between methods was determined using Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman method with repeated observa- tions. RESULTS: Twenty-four male and 12 female subjects completed the analysis. The correlation between SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista index values was 0.61 (P < 0.005). A linear relationship between the difference in the indices and the average index values was observed following the induction of anesthesia. In awake subjects, the bias between the SNAP(™) II and BIS Vista was 5 (95% CI 3-7). The limits of agreement were 23 (95% CI 19-26) and -13 (95% CI -9--16). During anesthesia, the mean difference on a log scale was 0.11 (95% CI 0.09-0.12). The limits of agreement were 0.43 (95% CI 0.40-0.45) and -0.21 (95% CI -0.18--0.24). The antilog of the mean difference demonstrated that the SNAP(™) II value was 28% (95% CI 24-33%) higher than the BIS Vista value following induction of anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAP(™) II monitor demonstrates a consistently positive bias during cardiopulmonary bypass under isoflurane anesthesia compared with the BIS Vista.
Authors: P Ruiz-Gimeno; M Soro; A Pérez-Solaz; M Carrau; F J Belda; J L Jover; G Aguilar Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Robert Greif; Scott Greenwald; Ekkehard Schweitzer; Sonja Laciny; Angela Rajek; James E Caldwell; Daniel I Sessler Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Ashraf A Dahaba; Markus Mattweber; Andreas Fuchs; Wilhelm Zenz; Peter H Rehak; Werner F List; Helfried Metzler Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.108