Locher Stephan, Stadler Konrad S, Boehlen Thomas, Bouillon Thomas, Leibundgut Daniel, Schumacher Peter M, Wymann Rolf, Zbinden Alex M
Department of Anesthesiology, Research Section, University of Berne, Switzerland.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Sep;101(3):591-602. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200409000-00007.
Automatic control of depth of hypnosis using the Bispectral Index (BIS) can help to reduce phases of inadequate control. Automated BIS control with propofol or isoflurane administration via an infusion system has recently been described, a comparable study with isoflurane administration via a vaporizer had not been conducted yet. Our hypothesis was that our new model based closed-loop control system can safely be applied clinically and maintains the BIS within a defined target range better than manual control.
Twenty-three patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists risk class I-III, scheduled for decompressive spinal surgery were randomized into groups with either closed-loop or manual control of BIS using isoflurane. An alfentanil target-controlled infusion was adjusted according to standard clinical practice. The BIS target was set to 50 during the operation. The necessity of human intervention in the control system and events of inadequate sedation (BIS <40 or BIS >60) were counted. The number of phases of inadequate control, defined as BIS >/=65 for more than 3 min, were recorded. The performance of the controller was assessed by several indicators (mean absolute deviation and median absolute performance error) and measured during the skin incision phase, the subsequent low flow phase, and the wound closure phase. Recovery profiles of both groups were compared.
No human intervention was necessary in the closed-loop control group. The occurrence of inadequate BIS was quantified with the mean and median values of the area under the curve and amounted to 0.360 and 0.088 for the manual control group and 0.049 and 0.017 for the closed-loop control group, respectively. In the manual control group nine phases of inadequate control were recorded, compared with one in the closed-loop control group, 10.3% to 0.5% of all observed anesthesia time. During all phases the averages of the performance parameters (mean absolute deviation and median absolute performance error) were more than 30% smaller in closed-loop control than in manual control (P < 0.05 between groups).
Closed-loop control with BIS using isoflurane can safely be applied clinically and performs significantly better than manual control, even in phases with abrupt changes of stimulation that cannot be foreseen by the control system.
使用脑电双频指数(BIS)自动控制催眠深度有助于减少控制不足的阶段。最近有研究描述了通过输注系统使用丙泊酚或异氟烷进行BIS自动控制,但尚未进行一项关于通过挥发器使用异氟烷的类似研究。我们的假设是,我们基于新模型的闭环控制系统能够安全地应用于临床,并且比手动控制能更好地将BIS维持在定义的目标范围内。
将23例美国麻醉医师协会风险分级为I - III级、计划行减压性脊柱手术的患者随机分为使用异氟烷进行BIS闭环控制或手动控制的组。根据标准临床实践调整阿芬太尼靶控输注。手术期间BIS目标设定为50。计算控制系统中人工干预的必要性以及镇静不足事件(BIS <40或BIS >60)。记录控制不足阶段的数量,定义为BIS≥65持续超过3分钟。通过几个指标(平均绝对偏差和中位数绝对性能误差)评估控制器的性能,并在皮肤切开阶段、随后的低流量阶段和伤口闭合阶段进行测量。比较两组的恢复情况。
闭环控制组无需人工干预。通过曲线下面积的均值和中位数对BIS不足的发生情况进行量化,手动控制组分别为0.360和0.088,闭环控制组分别为0.049和0.017。手动控制组记录到9个控制不足阶段,闭环控制组为1个,分别占所有观察到的麻醉时间的10.3%和0.5%。在所有阶段,闭环控制的性能参数(平均绝对偏差和中位数绝对性能误差)平均值比手动控制小30%以上(组间P < 0.05)。
使用异氟烷进行BIS闭环控制能够安全地应用于临床,并且即使在控制系统无法预见的刺激突然变化的阶段,其性能也显著优于手动控制。