Literature DB >> 24892803

Accuracy of the composite variability index as a measure of the balance between nociception and antinociception during anesthesia.

Marco M Sahinovic1, Douglas J Eleveld, Alain F Kalmar, Eleonora H Heeremans, Tom De Smet, Chandran V Seshagiri, Anthony R Absalom, Hugo E M Vereecke, Michel M R F Struys.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Composite Variability Index (CVI), derived from the electroencephalogram, was developed to assess the antinociception-nociception balance, whereas the Bispectral Index (BIS) was developed to assess the hypnotic state during anesthesia. We studied the relationships between these indices, level of hypnosis (BIS level), and antinociception (predicted remifentanil effect-site concentrations, CeREMI) before and after stimulation. Also, we measured their association with movement in response to a noxious stimulus.
METHODS: We randomized 120 patients to one of 12 groups targeting different hypnotic levels (BIS 70, 50, and 30) and various CeREMI (0, 2, 4, or 6 ng/mL). At pseudo-steady state, baseline values were observed, and a series of stimuli were applied. Changes in BIS, CVI, heart rate (HR), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) between baseline and response period were analyzed in relation to level of hypnosis, antinociception, and somatic response to the stimuli.
RESULTS: CVI and BIS more accurately correlate with somatic response to an Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation-noxious stimulation than HR, MAP, CeREMI, and propofol effect-site concentration (Tukey post hoc tests P < 0.01). Change in CVI is more adequate to monitor response to stimulation than changes in BIS, HR, or MAP (as described by the Mathews Correlation Coefficient with significance level set at P < 0.001). In contrast, none of the candidate analgesic state indices was uniquely related to a specific opioid concentration and is extensively influenced by the hypnotic state as measured by BIS.
CONCLUSIONS: CVI appears to correlate with somatic responses to noxious stimuli. However, unstimulated CVI depends more on hypnotic drug effect than on opioid concentration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24892803     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000274

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


  5 in total

1.  Global sensitivity analysis in physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models of inhaled and opioids anesthetics and its application to generate virtual populations.

Authors:  Frank Sánchez Restrepo; Alher Mauricio Hernández Valdivieso
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 2.410

2.  Evaluation of the brain anaesthesia response monitor during anaesthesia for cardiac surgery: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial using two doses of fentanyl.

Authors:  Mehrnaz Shoushtarian; Desmond P McGlade; Louis J Delacretaz; David T J Liley
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Propofol-sparing effect of different concentrations of dexmedetomidine : Comparison of gender differences.

Authors:  Ming Xiong; Zhao -Xin Zheng; Zu-Rong Hu; Jing He; Uchenna Madubuko; Dennis Grech; Xing-An Zhang; Bo Xu
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Ketofol for monitored anesthesia care in shoulder arthroscopy and labral repair: a case report.

Authors:  Kevin C Lee; Hanyuan Shi; Brian C Lee
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  The influence of depth of anesthesia and blood pressure on muscle recorded motor evoked potentials in spinal surgery. A prospective observational study protocol.

Authors:  Sebastiaan E Dulfer; M M Sahinovic; F Lange; F H Wapstra; D Postmus; A R E Potgieser; C Faber; R J M Groen; A R Absalom; G Drost
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.502

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.