Entropy and bispectral index for assessment of sedation, analgesia and the effects of unpleasant stimuli in critically ill patients: an observational study

INTRODUCTION: Sedative and analgesic drugs are frequently used in critically ill patients. Their overuse may prolong mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Guidelines recommend use of sedation protocols that include sedation scores and trials of sedation cessation to minimize drug use. We evaluated processed electroencephalography (response and state entropy and bispectral index) as an adjunct to monitoring effects of commonly used sedative and analgesic drugs and intratracheal suctioning. METHODS: Electrodes for monitoring bispectral index and entropy were placed on the foreheads of 44 critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation and who previously had no brain dysfunction. Sedation was targeted individually using the Ramsay Sedation Scale, recorded every 2 hours or more frequently. Use of and indications for sedative and analgesic drugs and intratracheal suctioning were recorded manually and using a camera. At the end of the study, processed electroencephalographical and haemodynamic variables collected before and after each drug application and tracheal suctioning were analyzed. Ramsay score was used for comparison with processed electroencephalography when assessed within 15 minutes of an intervention. RESULTS: The indications for boli of sedative drugs exhibited statistically significant, albeit clinically irrelevant, differences in terms of their association with processed electroencephalographical parameters. Electroencephalographical variables decreased significantly after bolus, but a specific pattern in electroencephalographical variables before drug administration was not identified. The same was true for opiate administration. At both 30 minutes and 2 minutes before intratracheal suctioning, there was no difference in electroencephalographical or clinical signs in patients who had or had not received drugs 10 minutes before suctioning. Among patients who received drugs, electroencephalographical parameters returned to baseline more rapidly. In those cases in which Ramsay score was assessed before the event, processed electroencephalography exhibited high variation. CONCLUSIONS: Unpleasant or painful stimuli and sedative and analgesic drugs are associated with significant changes in processed electroencephalographical parameters. However, clinical indications for drug administration were not reflected by these electroencephalographical parameters, and barely by sedation level before drug administration or tracheal suction. This precludes incorporation of entropy and bispectral index as target variables for sedation and analgesia protocols in critically ill patients.

Auditory event-related potentials, bispectral index, and entropy for the discrimination of different levels of sedation in intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND: Sedation protocols, including the use of sedation scales and regular sedation stops, help to reduce the length of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. Because clinical assessment of depth of sedation is labor-intensive, performed only intermittently, and interferes with sedation and sleep, processed electrophysiological signals from the brain have gained interest as surrogates. We hypothesized that auditory event-related potentials (ERPs), Bispectral Index (BIS), and Entropy can discriminate among clinically relevant sedation levels. METHODS: We studied 10 patients after elective thoracic or abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. Electroencephalogram, BIS, state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and ERPs were recorded immediately after surgery in the intensive care unit at Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of -5 (very deep sedation), -4 (deep sedation), -3 to -1 (moderate sedation), and 0 (awake) during decreasing target-controlled sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Reference measurements for baseline levels were performed before or several days after the operation. RESULTS: At baseline, RASS -5, RASS -4, RASS -3 to -1, and RASS 0, BIS was 94 [4] (median, IQR), 47 [15], 68 [9], 75 [10], and 88 [6]; SE was 87 [3], 46 [10], 60 [22], 74 [21], and 87 [5]; and RE was 97 [4], 48 [9], 71 [25], 81 [18], and 96 [3], respectively (all P < 0.05, Friedman Test). Both BIS and Entropy had high variabilities. When ERP N100 amplitudes were considered alone, ERPs did not differ significantly among sedation levels. Nevertheless, discriminant ERP analysis including two parameters of principal component analysis revealed a prediction probability PK value of 0.89 for differentiating deep sedation, moderate sedation, and awake state. The corresponding PK for RE, SE, and BIS was 0.88, 0.89, and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ERPs nor BIS or Entropy can replace clinical sedation assessment with standard scoring systems. Discrimination among very deep, deep to moderate, and no sedation after general anesthesia can be provided by ERPs and processed electroencephalograms, with similar P(K)s. The high inter- and intraindividual variability of Entropy and BIS precludes defining a target range of values to predict the sedation level in critically ill patients using these parameters. The variability of ERPs is unknown.

Effect of sedation level on the prevalence of delirium when assessed with CAM-ICU and ICDSC

Purpose We hypothesized that reduced arousability (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, RASS, scores −2 to −3) for any reason during delirium assessment increases the apparent prevalence of delirium in intensive care patients. To test this hypothesis, we assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in intensive care patients during sedation stops, and related the findings to the level of sedation, as assessed with RASS score. Methods We assessed delirium in 80 patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h using CAM-ICU and ICDSC during daily sedation stops. Sedation was assessed using RASS. The effect of including patients with a RASS of −2 and −3 during sedation stop (“light to moderate sedation”, eye contact less than 10 s or not at all, respectively) on prevalence of delirium was analyzed. Results A total of 467 patient days were assessed. The proportion of CAM-ICU-positive evaluations decreased from 53 to 31 % (p < 0.001) if assessments from patients at RASS −2/−3 (22 % of all assessments) were excluded. Similarly, the number of positive ICDSC results decreased from 51 to 29 % (p < 0.001). Conclusions Sedation per se can result in positive items of both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, and therefore in a diagnosis of delirium. Consequently, apparent prevalence of delirium is dependent on how a depressed level of consciousness after sedation stop is interpreted (delirium vs persisting sedation). We suggest that any reports on delirium using these assessment tools should be stratified for a sedation score during the assessment.

Meperidine and skin surface warming additively reduce the shivering threshold: a volunteer study

INTRODUCTION: Mild therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to improve outcome for patients after cardiac arrest and may be beneficial for ischaemic stroke and myocardial ischaemia patients. However, in the awake patient, even a small decrease of core temperature provokes vigorous autonomic reactions-vasoconstriction and shivering-which both inhibit efficient core cooling. Meperidine and skin warming each linearly lower vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. We tested whether a combination of skin warming and a medium dose of meperidine additively would reduce the shivering threshold to below 34 degrees C without producing significant sedation or respiratory depression. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated on four study days: (1) control, (2) skin warming (with forced air and warming mattress), (3) meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml), and (4) skin warming plus meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml). Volunteers were cooled with 4 degrees C cold Ringer lactate infused over a central venous catheter (rate asymptotically equal to 2.4 degrees C/hour core temperature drop). Shivering threshold was identified by an increase of oxygen consumption (+20% of baseline). Sedation was assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. RESULTS: Control shivering threshold was 35.5 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C. Skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 34.9 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C (p = 0.01). Meperidine reduced the shivering threshold to 34.2 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C (p < 0.01). The combination of meperidine and skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C (p < 0.01). There were no synergistic or antagonistic effects of meperidine and skin warming (p = 0.59). Only very mild sedation occurred on meperidine days. CONCLUSION: A combination of meperidine and skin surface warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C via an additive interaction and produced only very mild sedation and no respiratory toxicity.

The effects of dexmedetomidine/remifentanil and midazolam/remifentanil on auditory-evoked potentials and electroencephalogram at light-to-moderate sedation levels in healthy subjects

Avoidance of excessively deep sedation levels is problematic in intensive care patients. Electrophysiologic monitoring may offer an approach to solving this problem. Since electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to different sedation regimens vary, we assessed electrophysiologic responses to two sedative drug regimens in 10 healthy volunteers. Dexmedetomidine/remifentanil (dex/remi group) and midazolam/remifentanil (mida/remi group) were infused 7 days apart. Each combination of medications was given at stepwise intervals to reach Ramsay scores (RS) 2, 3, and 4. Resting EEG, bispectral index (BIS), and the N100 amplitudes of long-latency auditory-evoked potentials (ERP) were recorded at each level of sedation. During dex/remi, resting EEG was characterized by a recurrent high-power low-frequency pattern which became more pronounced at deeper levels of sedation. BIS Index decreased uniformly in only the dex/remi group (from 94 +/- 3 at baseline to 58 +/- 14 at RS 4) compared to the mida/remi group (from 94 +/- 2 to 76 +/- 10; P = 0.029 between groups). The ERP amplitudes decreased from 5.3 +/- 1.3 at baseline to 0.4 +/- 1.1 at RS 4 (P = 0.003) in only the mida/remi group. We conclude that ERPs in volunteers sedated with dex/remi, in contrast to mida/remi, indicate a cortical response to acoustic stimuli, even when sedation reaches deeper levels. Consequently, ERP can monitor sedation with midazolam but not with dexmedetomidine. The reverse is true for BIS.

Intra- and inter-individual variation of BIS-index and Entropy during controlled sedation with midazolam/remifentanil and dexmedetomidine/remifentanil in healthy volunteers: an interventional study

INTRODUCTION: We studied intra-individual and inter-individual variability of two online sedation monitors, BIS and Entropy, in volunteers under sedation. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were sedated in a stepwise manner with doses of either midazolam and remifentanil or dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. One week later the procedure was repeated with the remaining drug combination. The doses were adjusted to achieve three different sedation levels (Ramsay Scores 2, 3 and 4) and controlled by a computer-driven drug-delivery system to maintain stable plasma concentrations of the drugs. At each level of sedation, BIS and Entropy (response entropy and state entropy) values were recorded for 20 minutes. Baseline recordings were obtained before the sedative medications were administered. RESULTS: Both inter-individual and intra-individual variability increased as the sedation level deepened. Entropy values showed greater variability than BIS(R) values, and the variability was greater during dexmedetomidine/remifentanil sedation than during midazolam/remifentanil sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The large intra-individual and inter-individual variability of BIS and Entropy values in sedated volunteers makes the determination of sedation levels by processed electroencephalogram (EEG) variables impossible. Reports in the literature which draw conclusions based on processed EEG variables obtained from sedated intensive care unit (ICU) patients may be inaccurate due to this variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Nr. NCT00641563.