Tetanic stimulus of ulnar nerve as a predictor of heart rate response to skin incision in propofol remifentanil anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: To study adequate antinociception during general anaesthesia, tetanic stimulus of 5-10 s duration has been used previously as a standardized nociceptive stimulus. However, such stimuli have been found to correlate poorly with intraoperative nociception. We hypothesized that an electrical tetanic stimulus of the ulnar nerve, lasting 30 s, would provide a reliable experimental pain model. METHODS: Thirty-three patients, undergoing open abdominal surgery, were studied. Propofol and remifentanil were used for anaesthesia. Patients were randomized to receive remifentanil at three target-controlled infusion levels (1, 3, or 5 ng ml(-1)) during short (5 s, Tet5) and a long-lasting (30 s, Tet30) tetanic (50 mA, 50 Hz) stimulus and skin incision. RR intervals (RRI) were obtained from the ECG and the mean RRI before each stimulus (Tet5, Tet30, incision) was compared with that after the stimulus. RESULTS: At remifentanil level 1 ng ml(-1), the RRI responses to tetanic stimuli and skin incision were prominent but with higher concentrations (3 and 5 mg ml(-1)), responses were very small. Tet30 (r(2)=0.780) was the best predictor of the RRI response to skin incision when compared with Tet5 (r(2)=0.611), remifentanil level (r(2)=0.340), or propofol level (r(2)=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Long-lasting tetanic stimulus of ulnar nerve may provide a better experimental pain model for surgical pain during general anaesthesia than shorter stimuli, which have been applied in earlier studies.

Heart rate variability does not discriminate between different levels of haemodynamic responsiveness during surgical anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Hypnotic depth but not haemodynamic responsiveness is measured with EEG-based monitors. In this study we compared heart rate variability (HRV) in unstimulated patients and stimulation-induced HRV at different levels of anaesthesia. METHODS: A total of 95 ASA I or II patients were randomly assigned to five groups (Group 1: BIS 45(5), remifentanil 1 ng ml(-1); Group 2: BIS 45(5), remifentanil 2 ng ml(-1); Group 3: BIS 45(5), remifentanil 4 ng ml(-1); Group 4: BIS 30(5), remifentanil 2 ng ml(-1); Group 5: BIS 60(5), remifentanil 2 ng ml(-1)). A time- and frequency-domain analysis of the RR interval (RRI) from the electrocardiogram was performed. HRV before induction, before and after a 5 s tetanic stimulus of the ulnar nerve, and before and after tracheal intubation was compared between groups, between stimuli, and between responders to intubation [systolic arterial pressure (SAP) increase >20 mm Hg, a maximal heart rate (HR) after intubation >90 min(-1) or both] and non-responders (anova). RESULTS: Induction of anaesthesia significantly lowered HR and HRV. Mean RRI before stimulation was higher in G3 than in G1, G2, and G4 (P < 0.001), whereas the other HRV parameters were similar. Intubation induced a greater HRV response than tetanic stimulation. The mean RRI after intubation was lower in G3 compared with the other groups and the sd of the RRI after tetanic stimulation was lower in G3 compared with G5. Otherwise, unstimulated HRV and stimulation-induced HRV were similar in responders and non-responders. CONCLUSION: HRV parameters discriminate between awake and general anaesthesia, are different after tracheal intubation and a 5 s ulnar nerve stimulation, but do not discriminate between different levels of haemodynamic responsiveness during surgical anaesthesia.

Auditory-evoked potentials in bispectral index-guided anaesthesia for cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Midlatency auditory-evoked potentials, as measures of the anaesthetic state, were evaluated at similar levels of bispectral index in cardiac surgical patients maintained with either propofol or isoflurane anaesthesia. METHODS: Twenty-four patients were randomly allocated to anaesthesia with propofol (n = 12) or isoflurane (n = 12). Bispectral index was maintained below 60 during surgery. Auditory-evoked potentials were collected before induction of anaesthesia, 10 min after intubation, 30 min after sternotomy, during cardiopulmonary bypass at the time of cross-clamping of the aorta and during stable mild hypothermia, after de-clamping of the aorta, and after the operation. RESULTS: At the pre-determined time points, bispectral index values showed comparable depth of hypnosis in both groups. The latency of the Nb component of midlatency auditory-evoked potentials was significantly increased in the isoflurane group after intubation (P < 0.001) and that of both the Nb and the Pa components after sternotomy (P < 0.001) compared with the propofol group. No differences between the groups were detected with respect to haemodynamic variables. No patient reported recall of intraoperative events. CONCLUSION: After intubation and surgical stimulation, when bispectral index was at a constant level, there was a difference in the Nb and Pa components of the midlatency auditory-evoked potentials between the two anaesthetic regimens, indicating a distinction in the state of anaesthesia. Our results suggest that the parallel use of these two electrophysiological methods can show differences in the components of anaesthesia between various anaesthesia methods in cardiac surgical patients.

Novel multiparameter approach for measurement of nociception at skin incision during general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Direct indicators for the evaluation of the nociceptive-anti-nociceptive balance during general anaesthesia do not exist. The aim of this study was to combine physiological parameters to obtain such an indicator. METHODS: Fifty-five females scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia combining target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil were studied. Propofol was given to maintain state entropy (SE) at 50 and remifentanil was targeted at 1, 3 or 5 ng ml(-1). The patients' reactions and clinical signs of nociception, remifentanil levels and estimation of noxious intensity of incision were combined into a clinical score [Clinical Signs-Stimulus-Antinociception (CSSA)] to evaluate the nociceptive-anti-nociceptive balance. ECG, photoplethysmography (PPG), response entropy (RE) and SE were recorded from 60 s before to 120 s after skin incision. Differences between post- and pre-incision values of heart rate variability (HRV), PPG and pulse transition time related parameters were analysed off-line to evidence the best predictors of CSSA. Those best predictors of CSSA served to develop a response index of nociception (RN), scaled from 0 to 100. This index was further tested in 10 additional patients. RESULTS: HRV, RE, RE-SE and PPG variability were the best predictors of CSSA. The prediction probability of RN at predicting CSSA was 0.78. RN response was higher after larger incision, in movers and with lower remifentanil concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The empirically developed algorithm of RN leads to an index that seems to adequately estimate the nociceptive-anti-nociceptive balance at skin incision during general anaesthesia. In the future, CSSA may serve as a reference for studies investigating methods aimed at evaluating this pharmacodynamic component of anaesthesia.