JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Anesth Analg 2008; 107:117-124
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816f1965
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rehberg, B.
Right arrow Articles by Baars, J. H.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rehberg, B.
Right arrow Articles by Baars, J. H.

TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND STIMULATION

Variability Comparison of the Composite Auditory Evoked Potential Index and the Bispectral Index During Propofol-Fentanyl Anesthesia

Benno Rehberg, MD, Christiane Ryll, MD, Daniel Hadzidiakos, MD, Falk v. Dincklage, MD, and Jan H. Baars, MD

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Charité- Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Benno Rehberg, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Charité Campus Mitte, Schumannstr, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. Address e-mail to benno. rehberg{at}charite.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monitors of hypnotic depth help anesthesiologists to guide the anesthetic. The performance of different monitors depends on several factors, index variability at a steady state of hypnotic depth being one. We compared the recently introduced AAI1.6 with the established bispectral index (BIS), regarding index variability during stable values of propofol effect-site concentration.

METHODS: After ethics committee approval and written informed consent, anesthesia was performed in 40 patients with propofol as the target controlled infusion and fentanyl. Variability of BIS and AAI1.6 was calculated during periods of constant predicted propofol effect compartment concentration and constant levels of surgical stimulation as the median absolute deviation (MAD) from the median value. A variability index was calculated as 1.48*MAD/(threshold – median value), with threshold being the division line between awake and asleep. Threshold crossing time was used to evaluate the performance in predicting return of consciousness.

RESULTS: Variability index, however, was significantly larger for the AAI1.6, despite similar absolute variability measured as MAD. Lightening of anesthesia before recovery could be noticed earlier using the BIS than the AAI1.6, although consciousness was detected with a significantly higher Pk-value by the AAI1.6.

CONCLUSION: Variability in relation to the difference between the median index value during anesthesia and the threshold necessary to detect consciousness with high sensitivity is higher for the AAI1.6 than for the BIS. This, as well as the steeper concentration–response function found for AAI1.6, impairs the performance of the AAI1.6 in predicting imminent return of consciousness during decreasing propofol concentrations. However, it makes AAI1.6 well suited to detect consciousness when it has occurred.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.