Zhan Jian, Chen Feng, Wu Zhuoxi, Duan Zhenxin, Deng Qiangting, Zeng Jun, Hou Lihong, Zhang Jun, Si Yongyu, Liu Kexuan, Wang Mingjun, Li Hong
Department of Anesthesiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Front Aging Neurosci. 2023 Mar 9;15:1084462. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1084462. eCollection 2023.
This study aimed to compare the consistency of anesthesia consciousness index (Ai) with that of bispectral index (BIS) in monitoring the depth of anesthesia (DOA) during sevoflurane anesthesia, to reveal the optimal cutoff values in different states of consciousness, and explore the stability of DOA monitoring during intraoperative injurious stimulation.
We enrolled 145 patients (97 men and 48 women) from 10 medical centers. General anesthesia was induced using intravenous anesthetics and maintained with sevoflurane. Ai and BIS values were recorded.
The mean difference between the Ai and BIS was-0.1747 (95% confidence interval, -0.6660 to 0.3166; = 0.4857). The regression equation of Ai and BIS from the Deming regression analysis was = 5.6387 + 0.9067 ( is BIS, is Ai), and the slope and intercept were statistically significant. Meanwhile, the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of anesthesia-induced unconsciousness, loss of consciousness, and recovery of consciousness revealed that the accuracy of Ai and BIS were similar. In addition, the optimal cutoff values of the different states of consciousness were not sensitive to age, and both Ai and BIS had no correlation with hemodynamics.
We conclude that Ai and BIS show no systematic deviation in readings with high consistency, similar accuracy, and good stability; these insights provide more data for clinical application.
本研究旨在比较麻醉意识指数(Ai)与脑电双频指数(BIS)在七氟醚麻醉期间监测麻醉深度(DOA)的一致性,揭示不同意识状态下的最佳截断值,并探讨术中伤害性刺激期间DOA监测的稳定性。
我们从10个医疗中心招募了145例患者(97例男性和48例女性)。使用静脉麻醉剂诱导全身麻醉,并使用七氟醚维持麻醉。记录Ai和BIS值。
Ai与BIS的平均差异为-0.1747(95%置信区间,-0.6660至0.3166;P = 0.4857)。Deming回归分析得出的Ai与BIS的回归方程为Y = 5.6387 + 0.9067(Y为BIS,X为Ai),斜率和截距具有统计学意义。同时,对麻醉诱导无意识、意识消失和意识恢复的受试者工作特征曲线分析表明,Ai和BIS的准确性相似。此外,不同意识状态的最佳截断值对年龄不敏感,且Ai和BIS均与血流动力学无相关性。
我们得出结论,Ai和BIS在读数上无系统偏差,具有高度一致性、相似的准确性和良好的稳定性;这些见解为临床应用提供了更多数据。