Patient State Index: Titration of Delivery and Recovery from Propofol, Alfentanil, and Nitrous Oxide Anesthesia

Background The Patient State Index (PSI) uses derived quantitative electroencephalogram features in a multivariate algorithm that varies as a function of hypnotic state. Data are recorded from two anterior, one midline central, and one midline posterior scalp locations. PSI has been demonstrated to have a significant relation to level of hypnosis during intravenous propofol, inhalation, and nitrous oxide–narcotic anesthesia. This multisite study evaluated the utility of PSI monitoring as an adjunct to standard anesthetic practice for guiding the delivery of propofol and alfentanil to accelerate emergence from anesthesia. Methods Three hundred six patients were enrolled in this multicenter prospective randomized clinical study. Using continuous monitoring throughout the period of propofol–alfentanil–nitrous oxide anesthesia delivery, PSI guidance was compared with use of standard practice guidelines (both before [historic controls] and after exposure to the PSA 4000 monitor [Physiometrix, Inc., N. Billerica, MA; standard practice controls]). Anesthesia was always administered with the aim of providing hemodynamic stability, with rapid recovery. Results No significant differences were found for demographic variables or for site. The PSI group received significantly less propofol than the standard practice control group (11.9 &mgr;g · kg−1 · min−1;P < 0.01) and historic control group (18.2 &mgr;g · kg−1 · min−1;P < 0.001). Verbal response time, emergence time, extubation time, and eligibility for operating room discharge time were all significantly shorter for the PSI group compared with the historic control (3.3–3.8 min;P < 0.001) and standard practice control (1.4–1.5 min;P < 0.05 or P < 0.01) groups. No significant differences in the number of unwanted somatic events or hemodynamic instability and no incidences of reported awareness were found. Conclusions Patient State Index–directed titration of propofol delivery resulted in faster emergence and recovery from propofol–alfentanil–nitrous oxide anesthesia, with modest decrease in the amount of propofol delivered, without increasing the number of unwanted events.

[1]  E R John,et al.  Quantitative EEG changes associated with loss and return of consciousness in healthy adult volunteers anaesthetized with propofol or sevoflurane. , 2001, British journal of anaesthesia.

[2]  E. John,et al.  A Field Theory of Consciousness , 2001, Consciousness and Cognition.

[3]  R. Chabot,et al.  QEEG and Neuropsychological Profiles of Patients after Undergoing Cardiopulmonary Bypass Surgical Procedures , 1997, Clinical EEG.

[4]  Technology assessment and the "learning contamination" bias. , 1994, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[5]  Peter S. Sebel,et al.  Bispectral Analysis Measures Sedation and Memory Effects of Propofol, Midazolam, Isoflurane, and Alfentanil in Healthy Volunteers , 1997, Anesthesiology.

[6]  D. Chernik,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the Observer's: Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale Study with Intravenous Midazolam , 1990, Journal of clinical psychopharmacology.

[7]  J A Aldrete,et al.  A Postanesthetic Recovery Score , 1970, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[8]  E. John,et al.  QUANTITATIVE EEG ASSESSMENT OF CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF SEDATION/HYPNOSIS DURING SURGERY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHESIA , 2000 .

[9]  Peter S. Sebel,et al.  Bispectral Index Monitoring Allows Faster Emergence and Improved Recovery from Propofol, Alfentanil, and Nitrous Oxide Anesthesia , 1997 .

[10]  E. John,et al.  Invariant Reversible QEEG Effects of Anesthetics , 2001, Consciousness and Cognition.

[11]  E. John,et al.  Neurometrics: computer-assisted differential diagnosis of brain dysfunctions. , 1988, Science.

[12]  N. T. Smith,et al.  A Multicenter Study of Bispectral Electroencephalogram Analysis for Monitoring Anesthetic Effect , 1997, Anesthesia and analgesia.