...
首页> 外文期刊>Anesthesia and Analgesia: Journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society >Auditory event-related potentials, bispectral index, and entropy for the discrimination of different levels of sedation in intensive care unit patients.
【24h】

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

机译:在重症监护病房患者中,听觉事件相关电位,双频谱指数和熵可用于区分不同镇静水平。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:背景:镇静方案(包括使用镇静标度和定期镇静剂)有助于减少机械通气时间和重症监护病房的停留时间。由于对镇静深度的临床评估需要大量劳动,并且只能间歇执行,并且会干扰镇静和睡眠,因此来自大脑的经过处理的电生理信号已成为替代药物。我们假设听觉事件相关电位(ERP),双谱指数(BIS)和熵可以区分临床相关的镇静水平。方法:我们研究了10例行全身麻醉的经胸或腹部手术的患者。重症监护病房在手术后立即记录脑电图,BIS,状态熵(SE),反应熵(RE)和ERPs,列治文激动镇静量表(RASS)评分为-5(非常深镇静),-4(深度镇静),-3至-1(中度镇静)和0(清醒)期间使用异丙酚和瑞芬太尼降低靶点控制的镇静作用。在手术前或手术后几天进行基线水平的参考测量。结果:在基线,RASS -5,RASS -4,RASS -3至-1和RASS 0时,BIS为94 [4](中位数,IQR),47 [15],68 [9],75 [10] ,and 88 [6]; SE为87 [3],46 [10],60 [22],74 [21]和87 [5];和RE分别为97 [4],48 [9],71 [25],81 [18]和96 [3](所有P <0.05,Friedman Test)。 BIS和熵都具有较高的变异性。当单独考虑ERP N100振幅时,镇静水平之间的ERPs没有显着差异。尽管如此,包含两个主成分分析参数的判别式ERP分析显示,区分深层镇静,中度镇静和清醒状态的预测概率PK值为0.89。 RE,SE和BIS的相应PK分别为0.88、0.89和0.85。结论:ERP,BIS或Entropy均不能用标准评分系统代替临床镇静评估。 ERPs和经过处理的脑电图(具有相似的P(K))可以区分全身麻醉后的深层,深层至中度以及无镇静作用。熵和BIS的个体间和个体间差异很大,因此无法使用这些参数定义目标值范围来预测重症患者的镇静水平。 ERP的可变性未知。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号