Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Graduate School for Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 23;18(3):e0283511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283511. eCollection 2023.
Despite the large number of pigs involved in translational studies, no gold standard depth of anaesthesia indicators are available. We undertook a scoping review to investigate and summarize the evidence that sustains or contradicts the use of depth of anaesthesia indicators in this species.
Medline, Embase and CAB abstract were searched up to September 22nd 2022. No limits were set for time, language and study type. Only original articles of in vivo studies using pigs or minipigs undergoing general anaesthesia were included. The depth of anaesthesia indicators reported in the selected papers were divided in two categories: A, indicators purposely investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia; B, indicators reported but not investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia.
Out of 13792 papers found, 105 were included after the screening process. Category A: 17 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 19 papers. Studies were conducted using inhalant anaesthetics as the main anaesthetic agent in the majority of the cases (13/19 = 68.4%), while 3/19 (15.8%) used propofol. The most investigated depth of anaesthesia indicators were bispectral index (8/19 = 42.1%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (5/19 = 26.3%). Contrasting results about the specific usefulness of each depth of anaesthesia indicators were reported. Category B: 23 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 92 papers. The most reported depth of anaesthesia indicators were: motor response following a stimulus (37/92 = 40.2%), depth of anaesthesia scores (21/92 = 23.3%), bispectral index (16/92 = 17.8%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (9/92 = 9.8%).
Results highlight the lack of scientifically valid and reliable indicators to ensure adequate depth of anaesthesia in pigs.
尽管有大量的猪参与转化研究,但目前还没有麻醉深度的金标准指标。我们进行了一项范围综述,旨在调查和总结支持或反驳在该物种中使用麻醉深度指标的证据。
截至 2022 年 9 月 22 日,检索了 Medline、Embase 和 CAB 摘要。未对时间、语言和研究类型设置限制。仅纳入使用处于全身麻醉状态的猪或小型猪进行体内研究的原创文章。所选论文中报告的麻醉深度指标分为两类:A,专门作为评估麻醉深度的方法进行研究的指标;B,报告但不作为评估麻醉深度的方法进行研究的指标。
在 13792 篇论文中,经过筛选后有 105 篇论文被纳入。A 类:在 19 篇论文中发现了 17 种麻醉深度指标。研究大多使用吸入麻醉剂作为主要麻醉剂(13/19=68.4%),而 3/19(15.8%)使用丙泊酚。研究最多的麻醉深度指标是双频谱指数(8/19=42.1%)和频谱边缘频率 95%(5/19=26.3%)。报告了关于每种麻醉深度指标具体用途的对比结果。B 类:在 92 篇论文中发现了 23 种麻醉深度指标。报告最多的麻醉深度指标是:刺激后的运动反应(37/92=40.2%)、麻醉深度评分(21/92=23.3%)、双频谱指数(16/92=17.8%)和频谱边缘频率 95%(9/92=9.8%)。
结果突出表明,目前缺乏科学有效和可靠的指标来确保猪的麻醉深度充足。