4.6 Article

Skin conductance monitoring compared with Bispectral Index® to assess emergence from total i.v. anaesthesia using propofol and remifentanil

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 97, 期 6, 页码 817-821

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael278

关键词

anaesthetics i.v.; propofol; monitoring; bispectral index; sympathetic nervous system; skin conductance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Arousal after sevoflurane anaesthesia has been detectable by monitoring changes in skin conductance (SC) with similar accuracy as monitoring Bispectral Index (BIS (R)). As SC monitoring detects changes in sympathetic tone, the measurements might be confounded by the sympatholytic properties of propofol, a component of total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA). Therefore in this study, monitoring of SC during emergence from TIVA was compared with the monitoring of BIS (R). Methods. Twenty-five patients undergoing plastic surgery were investigated. The number of fluctuations of SC per second (NFSC), BIS (R) and haemodynamic variables [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR)] were recorded simultaneously. The performance of the monitoring devices in distinguishing between the clinical states 'steady-state anaesthesia', 'first clinical reaction' and 'extubation' were compared using the method of prediction probability (Pk) calculation. Results. BIS (R) showed the best performance in distinguishing between 'steady-state anaesthesia' and 'first reaction' (Pk BIS (R) 0.99 vs NFSC 0.80; P < 0.01), and 'steady-state anaesthesia' and 'extubation' (Pk BIS (R) 1.00 vs NFSC 0.91; P < 0.05); the time from first change of BIS (R) or NFSC to a first clinical reaction was significantly longer for NFSC (median BIS (R) 135 s vs NFSC 191 s; P < 0.05). BIS (R) and NFSC performed better in distinguishing between the investigated clinical states than SBP and HR. Conclusions. In this study, BIS (R) was found to predict arousal with a higher probability but slower response times than NFSC in patients waking after TIVA.

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