4.5 Article

Utility of Nociceptive Flexion Reflex Threshold, Bispectral Index, Composite Variability Index and Noxious Stimulation Response Index as measures for nociception during general anaesthesia

期刊

ANAESTHESIA
卷 67, 期 8, 页码 899-905

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07187.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany [BA2868/2-1, BA2868/3-1]
  2. Volkswagen Foundation
  3. Charite Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Movement and haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli during general anaesthesia are regarded as signs of nociception. We compared the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex Threshold (NFRT), Bispectral Index (BIS), Composite Variability Index (CVI), Noxious Stimulation Response Index (NSRI) and the calculated propofol/remifentanil effect-compartment concentrations (Ce) as predictors for such responses in 50 female subjects at laryngeal mask airway insertion and skin incision. The following prediction probabilities (PK-values) were obtained at laryngeal mask airway insertion and skin incision, respectively. For movement responses: NFRT = 0.77 and 0.72; p = 0.0001 and 0.004, respectively; BIS = 0.41 and 0.56, p = 0.29 and 0.5, respectively; CVI = 0.48 and 0.57, p = 0.76 and 0.88, respectively; NSRI = 0.49 and 0.76, p = 0.92 and 0.0001, respectively; propofol-Ce = 0.35 and 0.66, p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively; remifentanil-Ce = 0.68 and 0.72, p = 0.01 and 0.003, respectively. For heart rate responses: NFRT = 0.68 and 0.75, p = 0.04 and 0.01, respectively; BIS = 0.37 and 0.59, p = 0.15 and 0.41, respectively; CVI = 0.41 and 0.44, p = 0.39 and 0.37, respectively; NSRI = 0.48 and 0.53, p = 0.84 and 0.78, respectively; propofol-Ce = 0.42 and 0.56, p = 0.39 and 0.53, respectively; remifentanil-Ce = 0.58 and 0.54, p = 0.35 and 0.73, respectively. We conclude that the NFRT best predicts movement and heart rate responses to noxious stimuli. Effect-compartment concentrations and NSRI also predict movement (but not heart rate) responses satisfactorily.

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

4.5
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