Processed electroencephalography-guided general anesthesia and norepinephrine requirements: A randomized trial in patients having vascular surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) may help clinicians optimize depth of general anesthesia. Avoiding excessive depth of anesthesia may reduce intraoperative hypotension and the need for vasopressors. We tested the hypothesis that pEEG-guided - compared to non-pEEG-guided - general anesthesia reduces the amount of norepinephrine needed to keep intraoperative mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg in patients having vascular surgery. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. PATIENTS: 110 patients having vascular surgery. INTERVENTIONS: pEEG-guided general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Our primary endpoint was the average norepinephrine infusion rate from the beginning of induction of anesthesia until the end of surgery. MAIN RESULT: 96 patients were analyzed. The mean ± standard deviation average norepinephrine infusion rate was 0.08 ± 0.04 µg kg-1 min-1 in patients assigned to pEEG-guided and 0.12 ± 0.09 µg kg-1 min-1 in patients assigned to non-pEEG-guided general anesthesia (mean difference 0.04 µg kg-1 min-1, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.07 µg kg-1 min-1, p = 0.004). Patients assigned to pEEG-guided versus non-pEEG-guided general anesthesia, had a median time-weighted minimum alveolar concentration of 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) versus 0.8 (0.7, 0.8) (p = 0.006) and a median percentage of time Patient State Index was <25 of 12 (1, 41) % versus 23 (3, 49) % (p = 0.279). CONCLUSION: pEEG-guided - compared to non-pEEG-guided - general anesthesia reduced the amount of norepinephrine needed to keep mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg by about a third in patients having vascular surgery. Whether reduced intraoperative norepinephrine requirements resulting from pEEG-guided general anesthesia translate into improved patient-centered outcomes remains to be determined in larger trials.

Continuous Finger-cuff versus Intermittent Oscillometric Arterial Pressure Monitoring and Hypotension during Induction of Anesthesia and Noncardiac Surgery: The DETECT Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Finger-cuff methods allow noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring. This study aimed to determine whether continuous finger-cuff arterial pressure monitoring helps clinicians reduce hypotension within 15 min after starting induction of anesthesia and during noncardiac surgery. Specifically, this study tested the hypotheses that continuous finger-cuff-compared to intermittent oscillometric-arterial pressure monitoring helps clinicians reduce the area under a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg within 15 min after starting induction of anesthesia and the time-weighted average mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg during noncardiac surgery. METHODS: In this single-center trial, 242 noncardiac surgery patients were randomized to unblinded continuous finger-cuff arterial pressure monitoring or to intermittent oscillometric arterial pressure monitoring (with blinded continuous finger-cuff arterial pressure monitoring). The first of two hierarchical primary endpoints was the area under a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg within 15 min after starting induction of anesthesia; the second primary endpoint was the time-weighted average mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg during surgery. RESULTS: Within 15 min after starting induction of anesthesia, the median (interquartile range) area under a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg was 7 (0, 24) mmHg × min in 109 patients assigned to continuous finger-cuff monitoring versus 19 (0.3, 60) mmHg × min in 113 patients assigned to intermittent oscillometric monitoring (P = 0.004; estimated location shift: -6 [95% CI: -15 to -0.3] mmHg × min). During surgery, the median (interquartile range) time-weighted average mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg was 0.04 (0, 0.27) mmHg in 112 patients assigned to continuous finger-cuff monitoring and 0.40 (0.03, 1.74) mmHg in 115 patients assigned to intermittent oscillometric monitoring (P < 0.001; estimated location shift: -0.17 [95% CI: -0.41 to -0.05] mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous finger-cuff arterial pressure monitoring helps clinicians reduce hypotension within 15 min after starting induction of anesthesia and during noncardiac surgery compared to intermittent oscillometric arterial pressure monitoring.

Pulse wave analysis: basic concepts and clinical application in intensive care medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The measurement of cardiac output ( CO ) is important in patients with circulatory shock. Pulse wave analysis (PWA) estimates CO continuously and in real-time using the mathematical analysis of the arterial pressure waveform. We describe different PWA methods and provide a framework for CO monitoring using PWA in critically ill patients. RECENT FINDINGS: PWA monitoring systems can be classified according to their invasiveness (into invasive, minimally invasive, and noninvasive systems) and their calibration method (into externally calibrated, internally calibrated, and uncalibrated systems). PWA requires optimal arterial pressure waveform signals. Marked alterations and rapid changes in systemic vascular resistance and vasomotor tone can impair the measurement performance of PWA. SUMMARY: Noninvasive PWA methods are generally not recommended in critically ill patients (who have arterial catheters anyway). PWA systems can be used to continuously track stroke volume and CO in real-time during tests of fluid responsiveness or during therapeutic interventions. During fluid challenges, continuous CO monitoring is important because - if CO decreases - a fluid challenge can be stopped early to avoid further unnecessary fluid administration. PWA externally calibrated to indicator dilution methods can be used - in addition to echocardiography - to diagnose the type of shock.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy: an imprecise umbrella term to avoid.

'Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy' describes various haemodynamic treatment strategies that have in common that interventions are titrated to achieve predefined haemodynamic targets. However, the treatment strategies differ substantially regarding the underlying haemodynamic target variables and target values, and thus presumably have different effects on outcome. It is an over-simplifying approach to lump complex and substantially differing haemodynamic treatment strategies together under the term 'goal-directed haemodynamic therapy', an imprecise umbrella term that we should thus stop using.