Abstract

Background. There is an increasing concern of awareness and recall during general anesthesia for both the patient and the anesthetist. The bispectral index (BIS) is used to assess the level of sedation and depth of anesthesia and detect consciousness in different anesthetic drugs. Middle-latency auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) also quantify action of anesthetic drugs and detect the transition from consciousness to unconsciousness. We aim to compare the sensitivity and specificity between BIS and AEP in predicting unconsciousness in inhalational sevoflurane anesthesia and intravenous propofol anesthesia. Methods. Totally, 40 patients were randomly allocated into two groups: propofol or sevoflurane group. In the propofol group, anesthesia was induced with target-controlled infusion propofol. In the sevoflurane group, anesthesia was induced by increasing concentrations of sevoflurane. There were 3 end points during induction: sedation, unconsciousness, and anesthesia. Target and effect-site concentrations of propofol, end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane, and BIS and AEP were recorded at each stage. Results. We obtained good EC50 with both monitors, at which there is a 50% chance that the patient has reached the end point, but the index variation was affected by the anesthetic technique. Propofol had higher correlations with stage of anesthesia, BIS, and AEP than sevoflurane. BIS had higher correlations with depth of anesthesia than AEP, but we did not find an anesthetic depth monitor that had high sensitivity and specificity and is not affected by the anesthetic technique. Conclusions. The prediction powers of BIS and AEP do not seem as good as some papers mentioned.

Highlights

  • Awareness and recall during general anesthesia, which are unintended accidental, represent failure of successful anesthesia and cause a serious complication of general anesthesia that is feared by patients and anesthetists alike [1,2,3]

  • Anesthesia was induced by increasing concentrations of sevoflurane

  • Patients were randomised into propofol or sevoflurane groups. ere were 3 end points during induction: (1) sedation: patient was asleep and responded to gentle shaking or loud auditory stimulus; (2) unconsciousness: patient showed no response to verbal command and loss of eyelash reflex; (3) anesthesia: patient gave no purposeful movement on tetanic stimulation to the ulnar nerve (50 Hz, 80 mA, 0.25 ms pulses) at the wrist using a constant current peripheral nerve stimulator. e bispectral index (BIS) and auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) were recorded at each stage

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Awareness and recall during general anesthesia, which are unintended accidental, represent failure of successful anesthesia and cause a serious complication of general anesthesia that is feared by patients and anesthetists alike [1,2,3]. Evidence suggests that the overall risk of awareness during anesthesia is between 0.1 and 0.5% [2, 4,5,6], and awareness has been considered as a potentially important factor for the occurrence of some diseases in patients, such as severe emotional distress and posttraumatic stress disorder [4, 6,7,8]. It has important professional, personal, and financial consequences for the anesthetists [8,9,10,11]. It is a tool that may reduce the incidence of unexpected recall [10, 12, 13, 18]

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call