ABSTRACT
The brain is considered as the major target organ of anesthetic agents. Despite that, a reliable means to monitor its function during anesthesia is lacking. Mid latency auditory evoked potentials are known to be sensitive to anesthetic agents and might therefore be a measure of hypnotic state in pediatric patients. This review investigates the available literature describing various aspects of mid latency auditory evoked potential monitoring in pediatric anesthesia.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General , Anesthetics , Anesthetics/pharmacology , Child , Evoked Potentials, Auditory , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aepEXplus monitoring system, which uses mid-latency auditory evoked potentials to measure depth of hypnosis, was evaluated in pediatric patients receiving desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia. METHODS: Seventy-five patients, 1-18 years of age (stratified for age; 1-3, 3-6, 6-18 years, for subgroup analyses), were included in this prospective observational study. The aepEX and the bispectral index (BIS) were recorded simultaneously, the latter serving as a reference. The ability of the aepEX to detect different levels of consciousness, defined according to the University of Michigan Sedation Scale, investigated using prediction probability (Pk), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, served as the primary outcome parameter. As a secondary outcome parameter, the relationship between end-tidal desflurane and the aepEX and BIS values were calculated by fitting in a nonlinear regression model. RESULTS: The Pk values for the aepEX and the BIS were, respectively, .68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) and .85 (95% CI, 0.73-0.96; P = .02). The aepEX and the BIS had an area under the ROC curve of, respectively, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95) and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.84; P = .04). The maximized sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 81% (95% CI, 61%-93%) and 86% (95% CI, 74%-94%) for the aepEX at a cutoff value of >52, and 69% (95% CI, 56%-81%) and 70% (95% CI, 57%-81%) for the BIS at a cutoff value of >65. The age-corrected end-tidal desflurane concentration associated with an index value of 50 (EC50) was 0.59 minimum alveolar concentration (interquartile range: 0.38-0.85) and 0.58 minimum alveolar concentration (interquartile range: 0.41-0.70) for, respectively, the aepEX and BIS (P = .69). Age-group analysis showed no evidence of a difference regarding the area under the ROC curve or EC50. CONCLUSIONS: The aepEX can reliably differentiate between a conscious and an unconscious state in pediatric patients receiving desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia.
Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Inhalation/administration & dosage , Consciousness Monitors , Consciousness/drug effects , Desflurane/administration & dosage , Evoked Potentials, Auditory/drug effects , Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring/instrumentation , Reaction Time/drug effects , Remifentanil/administration & dosage , Acoustic Stimulation , Adolescent , Age Factors , Child , Child, Preschool , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Prospective Studies , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aepEX is a measure of depth of hypnosis (DoH), derived from processed mid-latency auditory evoked potentials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the aepEX as a measure of DoH in children receiving sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia. METHODS: aepEX and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded simultaneously in 75 children, (1-3, 3-6, and 6-18 years), receiving sevoflurane at endtidal concentrations (ETsevo ) between 1.5 and 0.5 MAC. The ETsevo at which the aepEX and BIS had a value of 50 (EC50aep EX and EC50BIS ) was calculated by nonlinear regression analysis. The accuracy of aepEX and BIS to predict the DoH was assessed by prediction probability (Pk ) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-four children were included for analysis. The EC50aep EX (2.68%) and EC50BIS (2.10%) were comparable; the same accounts for the EC50aep EX of the different age groups and the EC50aep EX and EC50BIS of corresponding age groups. The EC50BIS in children aged 1-3 years was lower than in the older age groups (P < 0.05). Pk values of the aepEX (0.32, CI 95% 0.08-0.56) and BIS (0.47, CI 95% 0.19-0.75) were comparable. The area under the ROC curve was 0.72 (CI 95%: 0.62-0.82) and 0.67 (CI95%: 0.56-0.77) for the aepEX and BIS, respectively (P = 0.54). Optimal cutoff values were >60 (aepEX) and >68 (BIS), with corresponding specificities 91%, CI 95%: 80-97% (aepEX) and 66%, CI 95%: 52-77% (BIS). CONCLUSIONS: In this study with children receiving sevoflurane anesthesia, the aepEX outperformed the BIS in distinguishing unconsciousness from consciousness. Both indices performed equally bad in differentiating different levels of DoH.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General , Anesthetics, Inhalation , Anesthetics, Intravenous , Consciousness Monitors , Evoked Potentials, Auditory/drug effects , Methyl Ethers , Piperidines , Adolescent , Algorithms , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Remifentanil , Reproducibility of Results , SevofluraneABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aepEX Plus monitor (aepEX) utilizes a mid-latency auditory evoked potential-derived index of depth of hypnosis (DoH). OBJECTIVE: This observational study evaluates the performance of the aepEX as a DoH monitor for pediatric patients receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. METHODS: aepEX and BIS values were recorded simultaneously during surgery in three groups of 25 children (aged 1-3, 3-6 and 6-16 years). Propofol was administered by target-controlled infusion. The University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was used to clinically assess the DoH during emergence. Prediction probability (P(k)) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of both DoH monitors. Nonlinear regression analysis was used to describe the dose-response relationships for the aepEX, the BIS, and propofol plasma concentrations (Cp). RESULTS: The P(k) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.36 and 0.21, respectively (P = 0.010). ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.77 and 0.88 for the aepEX and BIS, respectively (P = 0.644). At half-maximal effect (EC(50)), C(p) of 3.13 µg·ml(-1) and 3.06 µg·ml(-1) were observed for the aepEX and BIS, respectively. The r(2) for the aepEX and BIS was 0.53 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: The aepEX performs comparable to the BIS in differentiating between consciousness and unconsciousness, while performing inferior to the BIS in terms of distinguishing different levels of sedation and does not correlate well with the C(p) in children receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.
