Does a hypnosis session reduce the required propofol dose during closed-loop anaesthesia induction?: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypnosis has a positive effect on peri-operative anxiety and pain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a formal deep hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anaesthetic induction using automated administration of propofol guided by the bispectral index (BIS) in a closed loop. DESIGN: A 1 : 1 randomised, usual-care-controlled, single-centre trial. SETTING: Tertiary care centre in France from April 2014 to December 2015. PATIENTS: Female adult patients scheduled for outpatient gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia. INTERVENTION: Before surgery, patients were randomised to receive either a deep hypnosis session or routine care. Anaesthetic induction was performed automatically by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the BIS in a closed loop. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anaesthesia induction, defined as a BIS less than 60 for at least 30 s. RESULTS: Data for 31 patients in the hypnosis group and 35 in the control group were analysed. There was no evidence of a difference in the mean required propofol dose for anaesthetic induction between the hypnosis and the control groups (2.06 mg kg (95% confidence interval [1.68 to 2.43]) versus 1.79 mg kg (95% CI [1.54 to 2.03]), P = 0.25, respectively). CONCLUSION: The current study, which was designed to determine the effect of a deep hypnosis session on anaesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration, failed to detect a difference in the required dose of propofol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02249364.

Impact of a preoperative conversational hypnotic session on propofol consumption using closed-loop anesthetic induction guided by the bispectral index: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The automated administration of propofol in a closed loop could be used to objectively evaluate the nonpharmacological anesthetic action of hypnotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a conversational hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anesthetic induction. DESIGN: A randomized, usual care-controlled, single-center, patient-blind trial. SETTING: Tertiary care center in France from November 2012 to December 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients scheduled for a surgical procedure under general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Before surgery, patients were randomized with a computer-generated random list for a preoperative conversational hypnosis session or for usual care. The conversational hypnosis session was conducted and individualized by the therapist with an academic degree in hypnosis in a quiet environment. Anesthetic induction was automatically performed by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the bispectral index in a closed loop. OUTCOME: Primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anesthesia induction, defined as a Bispectral index less than 60 for at least 30 seconds. RESULTS: The study included 48 patients in the hypnosis group and 49 patients in the control group. No difference in propofol consumption to obtain anesthesia induction was observed between the groups (total dose: 138.6 [67.5] and 130 [47.9] mg, P = .47; adjusted dose: 2.15 [1.09] and 1.95 [0.66] mg/kg, P = .28, for the hypnosis and control groups, respectively). Hetero-evaluation of arm movement during propofol injection (no reaction: 98% and 74%; P = .004, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) and face reaction at venous access placement (no reaction 59% and 30%; P = .017, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) were lower in the hypnosis group. No adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in propofol consumption was observed in this study designed to evaluate the effect of a hypnotic conversational session on anesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration.