Monitors of the hypnotic component of anesthesia - correlation between bispectral index and cerebral state index.

BACKGROUND: The current study examines whether analysis of identical EEG data results in a high correlation coefficient of BIS and CSI values during all anesthetic levels and assesses the concordance of both EEG monitors for displaying the level of anesthesia as defined by the manufacturers. METHODS: EEG data of 40 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia with either sevoflurane/remifentanil or propofol/remifentanil were replayed to an EEG player and reanalysed by a BIS A-2000® monitor and a Cerebral State Monitor. Further, research into differences between CSI and BIS index values was performed, e.g., extraction of differences of ≥ 10 and ≥ 20 index points and of the EEG length with differing index values. RESULTS: The overall correlation coefficient was 0.68 without significant difference between propofol or sevoflurane group. In 51.8% of all recordings, both EEG monitors agreed in their classification of the anesthetic level. The number and length of differing index pairs was influenced by varying time delays of index calculation and different algorithms of index computation. CONCLUSION: In contrast to previous studies, our current approach combines the following conditions: analysis on basis of identical underlying EEG data from deep to light anesthesia, no guidance of anesthetic administration by one of the EEG-based monitors, avoidance of simultaneous EEG readings and the use of two different anesthetic regimens. Though the result of EEG analysis during anesthesia is similar with both monitors, CSI performance during propofol anesthesia was superior to sevoflurane anesthesia. Consequently, a lower agreement of classification of anesthetic levels between BIS and CSI was reached with the use of sevoflurane. Thus, CSI calculation seems not to be independent from anesthetic agent.

Correlation of the A-Line ARX index with acoustically evoked potential amplitude.

BACKGROUND: Automated indices derived from mid-latency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEP) have been proposed for monitoring the state of anaesthesia. The A-Line ARX index (AAI) has been implemented in the A-Line monitor (Danmeter, V1.4). Several studies have reported variable and, in awake patients, sometimes surprisingly low AAI values. The purpose of this study was to reproduce these findings under steady-state conditions and to investigate their causes. METHODS: Ten awake unmedicated volunteers were studied under steady-state conditions. For each subject, the raw EEG and the AAI were recorded with an A-Line monitor (V1.4) during three separate sessions of 45.0 (1.6) min duration each. MATLAB (Mathworks) routines were used to derive MLAEP responses from EEG data and to calculate maximal MLAEP amplitudes. RESULTS: The AAI values ranged from 15 to 99, while 11.4% fell below levels which, according to the manufacturer, indicate an anaesthetic depth suitable for surgery. Inter-individual and intra-individual variation was observed despite stable recording conditions. The amplitudes of the MLAEP varied from 0.8 to 42.0 microV. The MLAEP amplitude exceeded 2 microV in 75.3% of readings. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the MLAEP amplitude and the AAI value was r=0.89 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The version of the A-Line monitor used in this study does not exclude contaminated MLAEP signals. Previous publications involving this version of the A-Line monitor (as opposed to the newer A-Line/2 monitor series) should be reassessed in the light of these findings. Before exclusively MLAEP-based monitors can be evaluated as suitable monitors of depth of anaesthesia, it is essential to ensure that inbuilt validity tests eliminate contaminated MLAEP signals.