These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Utility of bispectral vs auditory evoked potential monitoring during anesthetic maintenance in combined sevoflurane-regional anesthesia in pediatric patients: comparison with standard practice].
    Author: Alvarez JC, Santiveri FX, Rodrígueza B, González I, González-Rivero MA, Escolano F.
    Journal: Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim; 2008 Nov; 55(9):527-34. PubMed ID: 19086719.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the indices computed by a bispectral (BIS) monitor and an auditory evoked potential (AEP) monitor during maintenance of anesthesia in pediatric patients. A secondary objective was to compare anesthetic consumption and recovery times. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients aged 6 months to 12 years under inhaled anesthesia with sevoflurane were administered a penile or caudal nerve block. BIS and AEP monitoring was then started. The patients were randomized to 3 groups in which the sevoflurane dosage was guided by the BIS index, the A-line ARX index (AAI), or standard procedures (control group). The BIS index, the AAI, the fraction of expired sevoflurane, hemodynamic parameters, and recovery time were the variables recorded for all patients. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled. Significant differences between the 2 monitor groups were observed. The mean (SD) AAI was lower in patients whose dosage was controlled by the BIS index (19 [2]) than in those whose dosage was based on the AEP monitor's reading (22 [4]) (P=.04). According to a Bland and Altman plot, there was good agreement between the BIS index and the AAI except for the highest and, in particular, the lowest values. The volumes of sevoflurane used and the recovery times were similar between groups. There was a positive correlation between the 2 indices (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.207; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: BIS monitoring provided a more stable index than did AEP monitoring and BIS-index guidance achieved a deeper level of hypnosis. There was good correlation between the 2 indices during maintenance of anesthesia. Neither monitor offered advantages over standard procedures with regard to movement, volume of anesthetic consumed, or recovery time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]