BACKGROUND: The aepEX Plus monitor (aepEX) utilizes a mid-latency auditory evoked potential-derived index of depth of hypnosis (DoH). OBJECTIVE: This observational study evaluates the performance of the aepEX as a DoH monitor for pediatric patients receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. METHODS: aepEX and BIS values were recorded simultaneously during surgery in three groups of 25 children (aged 1-3, 3-6 and 6-16 years). Propofol was administered by target-controlled infusion. The University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was used to clinically assess the DoH during emergence. Prediction probability (P(k)) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of both DoH monitors. Nonlinear regression analysis was used to describe the dose-response relationships for the aepEX, the BIS, and propofol plasma concentrations (Cp). RESULTS: The P(k) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.36 and 0.21, respectively (P = 0.010). ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.77 and 0.88 for the aepEX and BIS, respectively (P = 0.644). At half-maximal effect (EC(50)), C(p) of 3.13 μg·ml(-1) and 3.06 μg·ml(-1) were observed for the aepEX and BIS, respectively. The r(2) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.53 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: The aepEX performs comparable to the BIS in differentiating between consciousness and unconsciousness, while performing inferior to the BIS in terms of distinguishing different levels of sedation and does not correlate well with the C(p) in children receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.
BACKGROUND: The aepEX Plus monitor (aepEX) utilizes a mid-latency auditory evoked potential-derived index of depth of hypnosis (DoH). OBJECTIVE: This observational study evaluates the performance of the aepEX as a DoH monitor for pediatric patients receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. METHODS: aepEX and BIS values were recorded simultaneously during surgery in three groups of 25 children (aged 1-3, 3-6 and 6-16 years). Propofol was administered by target-controlled infusion. The University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was used to clinically assess the DoH during emergence. Prediction probability (P(k)) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of both DoH monitors. Nonlinear regression analysis was used to describe the dose-response relationships for the aepEX, the BIS, and propofol plasma concentrations (Cp). RESULTS: The P(k) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.36 and 0.21, respectively (P = 0.010). ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.77 and 0.88 for the aepEX and BIS, respectively (P = 0.644). At half-maximal effect (EC(50)), C(p) of 3.13 μg·ml(-1) and 3.06 μg·ml(-1) were observed for the aepEX and BIS, respectively. The r(2) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.53 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: The aepEX performs comparable to the BIS in differentiating between consciousness and unconsciousness, while performing inferior to the BIS in terms of distinguishing different levels of sedation and does not correlate well with the C(p) in children receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.