Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.
Br J Anaesth. 2023 May;130(5):536-545. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.12.026. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
'Depth of anaesthesia' monitors claim to measure hypnotic depth during general anaesthesia from the EEG, and clinicians could reasonably expect agreement between monitors if presented with the same EEG signal. We took 52 EEG signals showing intraoperative patterns of diminished anaesthesia, similar to those that occur during emergence (after surgery) and subjected them to analysis by five commercially available monitors.
We compared five monitors (BIS, Entropy-SE, Narcotrend, qCON, and Sedline) to see if index values remained within, or moved out of, each monitors' recommended index range for general anaesthesia for at least 2 min during a period of supposed lighter anaesthesia, as observed by changes in the EEG spectrogram obtained in a previous study.
Of the 52 cases, 27 (52%) had at least one monitor warning of potentially inadequate hypnosis (index above range) and 16 of the 52 cases (31%) had at least one monitor signifying excessive hypnotic depth (index below clinical range). Of the 52 cases, only 16 (31%) showed concordance between all five monitors. Nineteen cases (36%) had one monitor discordant compared with the remaining four, and 17 cases (33%) had two monitors in disagreement with the remaining three.
Many clinical providers still rely on index values and manufacturer's recommended ranges for titration decision making. That two-thirds of cases showed discordant recommendations given identical EEG data, and that one-third signified excessive hypnotic depth where the EEG would suggest a lighter hypnotic state, emphasizes the importance of personalised EEG interpretation as an essential clinical skill.
“麻醉深度”监测器声称可以从脑电图(EEG)测量全身麻醉期间的催眠深度,如果向监测器呈现相同的 EEG 信号,临床医生可以合理地期望它们之间的一致性。我们采集了 52 个脑电图信号,这些信号显示了术中麻醉程度降低的模式,类似于手术结束时(手术后)出现的模式,并将这些信号提交给了五种市售的监测器进行分析。
我们比较了五种监测器(BIS、熵 SE、麻醉趋势、qCON 和 Sedline),以查看在假定的较轻麻醉期间,至少有 2 分钟的时间内,其指数值是否保持在每个监测器推荐的用于全身麻醉的范围内,或者是否超出了该范围,如之前的研究中获得的脑电图频谱图变化所观察到的那样。
在 52 例中,有 27 例(52%)至少有一个监测器发出潜在的催眠不足警告(指数高于范围),而 52 例中有 16 例(31%)至少有一个监测器表示催眠深度过大(指数低于临床范围)。在 52 例中,只有 16 例(31%)所有五个监测器之间显示出一致性。与其余四个监测器相比,有 19 例(36%)出现一个监测器不一致,与其余三个监测器相比,有 17 例(33%)出现两个监测器不一致。
许多临床医生仍然依赖于指数值和制造商推荐的范围来做出滴定决策。三分之二的病例显示出相同的 EEG 数据下的不一致建议,而三分之一的病例表示催眠深度过大,而 EEG 则表明催眠状态较轻,这强调了个性化 EEG 解释作为一种基本临床技能的重要性。