B P Shortal1, L B Hickman2, R A Mak-McCully3, W Wang4, C Brennan1, H Ung5, B Litt6, V Tarnal7, E Janke7, P Picton7, S Blain-Moraes8, H R Maybrier2, M R Muench2, N Lin4, M S Avidan2, G A Mashour7, A R McKinstry-Wu9, M B Kelz9, B J Palanca2, A Proekt10. 1. Neuroscience Graduate Group, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Mathematics, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Center for Consciousness Science, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 9. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 10. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: proekta@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burst suppression occurs in the EEG during coma and under general anaesthesia. It has been assumed that burst suppression represents a deeper state of anaesthesia from which it is more difficult to recover. This has not been directly demonstrated, however. Here, we test this hypothesis directly by assessing relationships between EEG suppression in human volunteers and recovery of consciousness. METHODS: We recorded the EEG of 27 healthy humans (nine women/18 men) anaesthetised with isoflurane 1.3 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for 3 h. Periods of EEG suppression and non-suppression were separated using principal component analysis of the spectrogram. After emergence, participants completed the digit symbol substitution test and the psychomotor vigilance test. RESULTS: Volunteers demonstrated marked variability in multiple features of the suppressed EEG. In order to test the hypothesis that, for an individual subject, inclusion of features of suppression would improve accuracy of a model built to predict time of emergence, two types of models were constructed: one with a suppression-related feature included and one without. Contrary to our hypothesis, Akaike information criterion demonstrated that the addition of a suppression-related feature did not improve the ability of the model to predict time to emergence. Furthermore, the amounts of EEG suppression and decrements in cognitive task performance relative to pre-anaesthesia baseline were not significantly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, in contrast to current assumptions, EEG suppression in and of itself is not an important determinant of recovery time or the degree of cognitive impairment upon emergence from anaesthesia in healthy adults. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Burst suppression occurs in the EEG during coma and under general anaesthesia. It has been assumed that burst suppression represents a deeper state of anaesthesia from which it is more difficult to recover. This has not been directly demonstrated, however. Here, we test this hypothesis directly by assessing relationships between EEG suppression in human volunteers and recovery of consciousness. METHODS: We recorded the EEG of 27 healthy humans (nine women/18 men) anaesthetised with isoflurane 1.3 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for 3 h. Periods of EEG suppression and non-suppression were separated using principal component analysis of the spectrogram. After emergence, participants completed the digit symbol substitution test and the psychomotor vigilance test. RESULTS: Volunteers demonstrated marked variability in multiple features of the suppressed EEG. In order to test the hypothesis that, for an individual subject, inclusion of features of suppression would improve accuracy of a model built to predict time of emergence, two types of models were constructed: one with a suppression-related feature included and one without. Contrary to our hypothesis, Akaike information criterion demonstrated that the addition of a suppression-related feature did not improve the ability of the model to predict time to emergence. Furthermore, the amounts of EEG suppression and decrements in cognitive task performance relative to pre-anaesthesia baseline were not significantly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, in contrast to current assumptions, EEG suppression in and of itself is not an important determinant of recovery time or the degree of cognitive impairment upon emergence from anaesthesia in healthy adults. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: E R John; L S Prichep; W Kox; P Valdés-Sosa; J Bosch-Bayard; E Aubert; M Tom; F di Michele; L D Gugino; F diMichele Journal: Conscious Cogn Date: 2001-06
Authors: Mika Särkelä; Seppo Mustola; Tapio Seppänen; Miika Koskinen; Pasi Lepola; Kalervo Suominen; Tatu Juvonen; Heli Tolvanen-Laakso; Ville Jäntti Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: A E Ibrahim; M M Ghoneim; E D Kharasch; R H Epstein; S B Groudine; T J Ebert; W B Binstock; B K Philip Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Paula L Watson; Ayumi K Shintani; Richard Tyson; Pratik P Pandharipande; Brenda T Pun; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrea I Luppi; Daniel Golkowski; Andreas Ranft; Rüdiger Ilg; Denis Jordan; David K Menon; Emmanuel A Stamatakis Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Francisco Almeida Lobo; Susana Vacas; Andrea O Rossetti; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol Date: 2020-10-31
Authors: S Kendall Smith; Thomas Nguyen; Alyssa K Labonte; MohammadMehdi Kafashan; Orlandrea Hyche; Christian S Guay; Elizabeth Wilson; Courtney W Chan; Anhthi Luong; L Brian Hickman; Bradley A Fritz; Daniel Emmert; Thomas J Graetz; Spencer J Melby; Brendan P Lucey; Yo-El S Ju; Troy S Wildes; Michael S Avidan; Ben J A Palanca Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 2.692