4.6 Article

Evaluation of the electroencephalogram in awake, sedated, and anesthetized dogs

期刊

RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 66-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2023.04.008

关键词

Anesthetic depth; Bispectral index; Canine; Monitoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sedation and anesthesia affect the EEG, and the interpretation can be aided by measuring PSI, visual inspection of DSA, and power density analysis of specific frequency bands.
Sedation and anesthesia alter the raw electroencephalogram (EEG). Interpretation of the EEG is facilitated by measuring the patient state index (PSI), visual inspection of density spectral arrays (DSA), and power density analysis of the delta (0.1-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), and beta plus gamma (12-40 Hz) frequency bands. Baseline data were recorded in six male intact Beagles before sedation with intravenous acepromazine (0.03 mg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg). Anesthesia was induced and maintained for five minutes with intra-venous propofol (1.5 mg/kg over five seconds followed by 12 mg/kg/h). Additional propofol (0.5-1.0 mg/kg and up to 16.7 mg/kg/h) was administered within this time frame if the PSI was above 50. The effects of sedation and anesthesia were evaluated with a mixed-effect model followed by Dunnett's test (alpha = 0.05). The average baseline PSI (95% confidence interval) was 93.0 (91.4-94.6) and decreased on sedation [88.7 (86.0-91.3); p = 0.039] and anesthesia [44.5 (40.8-48.2); p < 0.001]. The awake DSA showed dense power in all bands. The power density decreased with sedation. During anesthesia, the power density was reduced in fre-quencies above 12 Hz. The baseline power density on the delta, theta, alpha, and beta plus gamma bands was higher than sedation (p < 0.007). Compared to baseline, anesthesia had lower power on delta, and beta plus gamma bands (p < 0.002). The interpretation in awake, sedated, and anesthetized dogs of the EEG can be facilitated by processing and generating PSI and DSA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据