Studies on the assessment of the adequacy of anesthesia

Several hypnosis monitoring systems based on the processed electroencephalogram (EEG) have been developed for use during general anesthesia. The assessment of the analgesic component (antinociception) of general anesthesia is an emerging field of research. This study investigated the interaction of hypnosis and antinociception, the association of several physiological variables with the degree of intraoperative nociception, and aspects of EEG Bispectral Index Scale (BIS) monitoring during general anesthesia. In addition, EEG features and heart rate (HR) responses during desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia were compared. A propofol bolus of 0.7 mg/kg was more effective than an alfentanil bolus of 0.5 mg in preventing the recurrence of movement responses during uterine dilatation and curettage (D C) after a propofol-alfentanil induction, combined with nitrous oxide (N2O). HR and several HR variability-, frontal electromyography (fEMG)-, pulse plethysmography (PPG)-, and EEG-derived variables were associated with surgery-induced movement responses. Movers were discriminated from non-movers mostly by the post-stimulus values per se or normalized with respect to the pre-stimulus values. In logistic regression analysis, the best classification performance was achieved with the combination of normalized fEMG power and HR during D C (overall accuracy 81%, sensitivity 53%, specificity 95%), and with the combination of normalized fEMG-related response entropy, electrocardiography (ECG) R-to-R interval (RRI), and PPG dicrotic notch amplitude during sevoflurane anesthesia (overall accuracy 96%, sensitivity 90%, specificity 100%). ECG electrode impedances after alcohol swab skin pretreatment alone were higher than impedances of designated EEG electrodes. The BIS values registered with ECG electrodes were higher than those registered simultaneously with EEG electrodes. No significant difference in the time to home-readiness after isoflurane-N2O or sevoflurane-N2O anesthesia was found, when the administration of the volatile agent was guided by BIS monitoring. All other early and intermediate recovery parameters were also similar. Transient epileptiform EEG activity was detected in eight of 15 sevoflurane patients during a rapid increase in the inspired volatile concentration, and in none of the 16 desflurane patients. The observed transient EEG changes did not adversely affect the recovery of the patients. Following the rapid increase in the inhaled desflurane concentration, HR increased transiently, reaching its maximum in two minutes. In the sevoflurane group, the increase was slower and more subtle. In conclusion, desflurane may be a safer volatile agent than sevoflurane in patients with a lowered seizure threshold. The tachycardia induced by a rapid increase in the inspired desflurane concentration may present a risk for patients with heart disease. Designated EEG electrodes may be superior to ECG electrodes in EEG BIS monitoring. When the administration of isoflurane or sevoflurane is adjusted to maintain BIS values at 50-60 in healthy ambulatory surgery patients, the speed and quality of recovery are similar after both isoflurane-N2O and sevoflurane-N2O anesthesia. When anesthesia is maintained by the inhalation of N2O and bolus doses of propofol and alfentanil in healthy unparalyzed patients, movement responses may be best avoided by ensuring a relatively deep hypnotic level with propofol. HR/RRI, fEMG, and PPG dicrotic notch amplitude are potential indicators of nociception during anesthesia, but their performance needs to be validated in future studies. Combining information from different sources may improve the discrimination of the level of nociception.