Noxious Stimulation Response Index: A Novel Anesthetic State Index Based on Hypnotic–Opioid Interaction

Background:The noxious stimulation response index (NSRI) is a novel anesthetic depth index ranging between 100 and 0, computed from hypnotic and opioid effect-site concentrations using a hierarchical interaction model. The authors validated the NSRI on previously published data. Methods:The data encompassed 44 women, American Society of Anesthesiology class I, randomly allocated to three groups receiving remifentanil infusions targeting 0, 2, and 4 ng/ml. Propofol was given at stepwise increasing effect-site target concentrations. At each concentration, the observer assessment of alertness and sedation score, the response to eyelash and tetanic stimulation of the forearm, the bispectral index (BIS), and the acoustic evoked potential index (AAI) were recorded. The authors computed the NSRI for each stimulation and calculated the prediction probabilities (PKs) using a bootstrap technique. The PKs of the different predictors were compared with multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Results:The median (95% CI) PK of the NSRI, BIS, and AAI for loss of response to tetanic stimulation was 0.87 (0.75–0.96), 0.73 (0.58–0.85), and 0.70 (0.54–0.84), respectively. The PK of effect-site propofol concentration, BIS, and AAI for observer assessment of alertness and sedation score and loss of eyelash reflex were between 0.86 (0.80–0.92) and 0.92 (0.83–0.99), whereas the PKs of NSRI were 0.77 (0.68–0.85) and 0.82 (0.68–0.92). The PK of the NSRI for BIS and AAI was 0.66 (0.58–0.73) and 0.63 (0.55–0.70), respectively. Conclusion:The NSRI conveys information that better predicts the analgesic component of anesthesia than AAI, BIS, or predicted propofol or remifentanil concentrations. Prospective validation studies in the clinical setting are needed.

[1]  A M Zbinden,et al.  Prediction of the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation: comparison of laser-Doppler skin vasomotor reflex and pulse wave reflex. , 2002, British journal of anaesthesia.

[2]  G. Xie,et al.  A Response Surface Analysis of Propofol–Remifentanil Pharmacodynamic Interaction in Volunteers , 2004, Anesthesiology.

[3]  T. Bouillon Hypnotic and opioid anesthetic drug interactions on the CNS, focus on response surface modeling. , 2008, Handbook of experimental pharmacology.

[4]  Thomas W. Schnider,et al.  Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development , 1997 .

[5]  S. Petersen-Felix,et al.  Heart rate variability does not discriminate between different levels of haemodynamic responsiveness during surgical anaesthesia. , 2007, British journal of anaesthesia.

[6]  S L Shafer,et al.  The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. , 1999, Anesthesiology.

[7]  A. Yli-Hankala,et al.  Tetanic stimulus of ulnar nerve as a predictor of heart rate response to skin incision in propofol remifentanil anaesthesia. , 2007, British journal of anaesthesia.

[8]  H. Storm,et al.  Comparison of skin conductance with entropy during intubation, tetanic stimulation and emergence from general anaesthesia , 2007, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[9]  A. McEwan,et al.  The Interaction of Fentanyl on the Cp50 of Propofol for Loss of Consciousness and Skin Incision , 1994, Anesthesiology.

[10]  I Korhonen,et al.  Stimulation induced variability of pulse plethysmography does not discriminate responsiveness to intubation. , 2006, British journal of anaesthesia.

[11]  Hugo Vereecke,et al.  Ability of the Bispectral Index, Autoregressive Modelling with Exogenous Input-derived Auditory Evoked Potentials, and Predicted Propofol Concentrations to Measure Patient Responsiveness during Anesthesia with Propofol and Remifentanil , 2003, Anesthesiology.

[12]  N. T. Smith,et al.  Performance of the ARX-derived Auditory Evoked Potential Index as an Indicator of Anesthetic Depth: A Comparison with Bispectral Index and Hemodynamic Measures during Propofol Administration , 2002, Anesthesiology.

[13]  S L Shafer,et al.  Influence of Age and Gender on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Remifentanil: I. Model Development , 1997, Anesthesiology.

[14]  S L Shafer,et al.  Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Remifentanil: II. Model Application , 1997, Anesthesiology.

[15]  S. Shafer,et al.  The Influence of Method of Administration and Covariates on the Pharmacokinetics of Propofol in Adult Volunteers , 1998, Anesthesiology.

[16]  A. Yli-Hankala,et al.  Assessment of surgical stress during general anaesthesia. , 2007, British journal of anaesthesia.

[17]  H. Storm,et al.  Skin conductance or entropy for detection of non‐noxious stimulation during different clinical levels of sedation , 2007, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[18]  J. Bruhn,et al.  Pharmacodynamic Interaction between Propofol and Remifentanil Regarding Hypnosis, Tolerance of Laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index, and Electroencephalographic Approximate Entropy , 2004, Anesthesiology.

[19]  Erik Olofsen,et al.  Propofol Reduces Perioperative Remifentanil Requirements in a Synergistic Manner: Response Surface Modeling of Perioperative Remifentanil–Propofol Interactions , 2003, Anesthesiology.

[20]  Warren D. Smith,et al.  Measuring the Performance of Anesthetic Depth Indicators , 1996, Anesthesiology.