Literature DB >> 25902324

A Multicenter Evaluation of a Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Goverdhan D Puri1, Preethy J Mathew, Indranil Biswas, Amitabh Dutta, Jayashree Sood, Satinder Gombar, Sanjeev Palta, Morup Tsering, P L Gautam, Aveek Jayant, Inderjeet Arora, Vishal Bajaj, T S Punia, Gurjit Singh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems for anesthesia delivery have been shown to outperform traditional manual control in different clinical settings. The present trial was aimed at evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) in comparison with manual control across multiple centers in India.
METHODS: Adult patients scheduled for major surgical procedures of an expected duration of 1 to 3 hours were randomized across 6 sites into 2 groups: a CLADS group and a manual group. In the manual control group, propofol infusion was titrated manually by the attending anesthesiologist to a BIS of 50 during induction and maintenance. Analgesia was maintained with fentanyl infusion and nitrous oxide in both groups. In the CLADS group, both induction and maintenance of anesthesia were performed automatically using CLADS. The primary outcome measure was the performance of the system as assessed by the percentage of total anesthesia time BIS remained ±10 of target BIS. The secondary outcome measures were a percentage of anesthesia-time heart rate and mean arterial pressure within 25% of the baseline, median absolute performance error, wobble, and global score. Wobble indicates intraindividual variability in the control of BIS, and global score reflects the overall performance; lower values indicate superior performance for both parameters. The performance parameters of the system also were compared among the participating sites.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two patients were randomized. BIS was maintained within ±10 of target for significantly longer time in the CLADS group (81.4% ± 8.9 % of anesthesia duration) than in the manual group (55.34% ± 25%, P < 0.0001). The indices that assess performance were significantly better in the CLADS group than the manual group as follows: median absolute performance error was 10 (10, 12) (median [interquartile range]) in the CLADS group versus 18 (14, 24) in the manual group, P < 0.0001; wobble was 9 (8, 10) in CLADS group versus 10 (8, 14) in the manual group, P = 0.0009; and Global score, which reflects overall performance, was 24 (19, 30) in the CLADS group versus 51 (31, 99) in the manual group, P < 0.0001. The percentage of time heart rate was within 25% of the baseline was significantly greater in the CLADS group (heart rate of 95 [87, 99], median [interquartile range], in the CLADS group versus 90 [75, 98] in the manual group P = 0.0031). On comparison of data between the centers, the performance parameters did not differ significantly among the centers in the CLADS group (P = 0.94), but the parameters differed significantly among the centers in the manual group (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study in a multicenter setting proves the consistently better performance of automated anesthesia drug delivery compared with conventional manual control. This highlights an important advantage of an automated system for delivering standardized anesthesia, thereby overcoming differences in practices among anesthesiologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25902324     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000769

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


  13 in total

1.  Optimizing Robust PID Control of Propofol Anesthesia for Children: Design and Clinical Evaluation.

Authors:  Klaske van Heusden; Kristian Soltesz; Erin Cooke; Sonia Brodie; Nicholas West; Matthias Gorges; J Mark Ansermino; Guy A Dumont
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  A simulation-based comparative analysis of PID and LQG control for closed-loop anesthesia delivery.

Authors:  Sourish Chakravarty; Ayan S Waite; John H Abel; Emery N Brown
Journal:  Proc IFAC World Congress       Date:  2021-04-14

3.  Anesthesiology, automation, and artificial intelligence.

Authors:  John C Alexander; Girish P Joshi
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2017-12-05

4.  Ropivacaine vs. levobupivacaine: Analgesic effect of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia during childbirth and effects on neonatal Apgar scores, as well as maternal vital signs.

Authors:  Qiuju Cheng; Weiqiang Zhang; Yanling Lu; Jinhai Chen; Hang Tian
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 2.447

5.  A Century of Technology in Anesthesia & Analgesia.

Authors:  Jane S Moon; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 6.  Recent advances in the technology of anesthesia.

Authors:  Christian Seger; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-05-18

7.  Fully automated life support: an implementation and feasibility pilot study in healthy pigs.

Authors:  Wilfried Klingert; Jörg Peter; Christian Thiel; Karolin Thiel; Wolfgang Rosenstiel; Kathrin Klingert; Christian Grasshoff; Alfred Königsrainer; Martin Schenk
Journal:  Intensive Care Med Exp       Date:  2018-01-16

8.  Effect site concentration of propofol at induction and recovery of anaesthesia - A correlative dose-response study.

Authors:  Vasanth Sukumar; Arathi Radhakrishnan; Venkatesh H Keshavan
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2018-04

9.  Early post-operative cognitive dysfunction after closed-loop versus manual target controlled-infusion of propofol and remifentanil in patients undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery: Protocol of the randomized controlled single-blind POCD-ELA trial.

Authors:  Guillaume Besch; Lucie Vettoretti; Melanie Claveau; Nathalie Boichut; Nicolas Mahr; Yannis Bouhake; Ngai Liu; Thierry Chazot; Emmanuel Samain; Sebastien Pili-Floury
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Bispectral index to guide induction of anesthesia: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Dirk Rüsch; Christian Arndt; Leopold Eberhart; Scarlett Tappert; Dennis Nageldick; Hinnerk Wulf
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.217

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.