Literature DB >> 28197775

Individual indicators of appropriate hypnotic level during propofol anesthesia: highest alpha power and effect-site concentrations of propofol at loss of response.

Hongling Kang1, Hassan Mamdouh Hassan Mohamed2, Masaki Takashina3, Takahiko Mori4, Yuji Fujino1, Satoshi Hagihira5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electroencephalogram (EEG) waveforms vary widely among individuals, this decreases the usefulness of BIS™ monitors for assessing the effects of propofol. Practically, anesthesia is only seen as too deep when evidence of burst-suppression is seen. We designed an experiment to help towards better assessment of individual anesthetic needs. First, to mark the Ce (effect-site concentration) of propofol at loss of response to calling name and gently shaking shoulders (LOR), we defined Ce-LOR. To mark the transient power increase in the alpha range (9-14 Hz), common to all patients, when propofol concentration gradually increases, we defined Ce-alpha as the highest recorded alpha power for Ce. We also defined Ce-OBS as the Ce of propofol at initial observation of burst-suppression. Then we tried to predict Ce-LOR and Ce-alpha from Ce-OBS, vice versa, and considered the significance of these parameters.
METHODS: We enrolled 26 female patients (age 33-65) who were undergoing scheduled mastectomy. During anesthesia, we recorded all raw EEG packets as well as EEG-derived parameters on a computer from BIS-XP™ monitor. Propofol was infused using a TCI pump. Target concentration was adjusted so that Ce of propofol was gradually increased.
RESULTS: We obtained the following regression equation; Ce-alpha or Ce-OBS = Ce-LOR × 0.87 + 1.06 + dummy × 0.83 (for Ce-alpha dummy = 0, and for Ce-OBS = 1; adjusted r = 0.90, p < 2.2e-16) by ANCOVA. At Ce-alpha, BIS was 50.2 ± 7.7.
CONCLUSION: Ce-alpha and Ce-OBS could be estimated from Ce-LOR. Based on Ce-LOR it is possible to manage the hypnotic level of individual patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electroencephalogram; Inter-individual variation; Pharmacodynamics; Propofol

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28197775     DOI: 10.1007/s00540-017-2319-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anesth        ISSN: 0913-8668            Impact factor:   2.078


  26 in total

1.  Electroencephalographic bicoherence is sensitive to noxious stimuli during isoflurane or sevoflurane anesthesia.

Authors:  Satoshi Hagihira; Masaki Takashina; Takahiko Mori; Hiroshi Ueyama; Takashi Mashimo
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Intracellular evidence for incompatibility between spindle and delta oscillations in thalamocortical neurons of cat.

Authors:  A Nuñez; R Curró Dossi; D Contreras; M Steriade
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.590

3.  The contribution of remifentanil to middle latency auditory evoked potentials during induction of propofol anesthesia.

Authors:  Stefan Schraag; Joachim Flaschar; Manuela Schleyer; Michael Georgieff; Gavin N C Kenny
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children.

Authors:  B Marsh; M White; N Morton; G N Kenny
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 5.  Practical use of the raw electroencephalogram waveform during general anesthesia: the art and science.

Authors:  Cambell Bennett; Logan J Voss; John P M Barnard; James W Sleigh
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  The performance of compartmental and physiologically based recirculatory pharmacokinetic models for propofol: a comparison using bolus, continuous, and target-controlled infusion data.

Authors:  Kenichi Masui; Richard N Upton; Anthony G Doufas; Johan F Coetzee; Tomiei Kazama; Eric P Mortier; Michel M R F Struys
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 7.  Development of the technology for 'Diprifusor' TCI systems.

Authors:  J M Gray; G N Kenny
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Changes in the electroencephalogram during anaesthesia and their physiological basis.

Authors:  S Hagihira
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 9.166

9.  The comparative amnestic effects of midazolam, propofol, thiopental, and fentanyl at equisedative concentrations.

Authors:  R A Veselis; R A Reinsel; V A Feshchenko; M Wroński
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol.

Authors:  Patrick L Purdon; Eric T Pierce; Eran A Mukamel; Michael J Prerau; John L Walsh; Kin Foon K Wong; Andres F Salazar-Gomez; Priscilla G Harrell; Aaron L Sampson; Aylin Cimenser; ShiNung Ching; Nancy J Kopell; Casie Tavares-Stoeckel; Kathleen Habeeb; Rebecca Merhar; Emery N Brown
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  4 in total

1.  Developing a Real-Time Electroencephalogram-Guided Anesthesia-Management Curriculum for Educating Residents: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Miles Berger; Sarada S Eleswarpu; Mary Cooter Wright; Anna M Ray; Sarah A Wingfield; Mitchell T Heflin; Shahrukh Bengali; Ankeet D Udani
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 6.627

2.  A single nucleotide polymorphism-based formula to predict the risk of propofol TCI concentration being over 4 µg mL-1 at the time of loss of consciousness.

Authors:  Zhuoling Zheng; Faling Xue; Zhongxing Wang; Jiali Li; Haini Wang; Yongqi He; Lingyi Zhang; Wudi Ma; Caibin Zhang; Yanping Guan; Fang Ye; Yongzi Wen; Xiaoyan Li; Min Huang; Wenqi Huang
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 3.245

3.  Brain Mechanisms during Course of Anesthesia: What We Know from EEG Changes during Induction and Recovery.

Authors:  Satoshi Hagihira
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-29

4.  The influence of induction speed on the frontal (processed) EEG.

Authors:  D P Obert; P Sepúlveda; S Kratzer; G Schneider; M Kreuzer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.