Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia
Abstract Study Objective To determine the difference in performance of two different auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitors, the A-Line AEP (AAI) and the aepEX, and their indices, during general anesthesia. Design Prospective study. Setting Operating room at a private hospital. Patients 40 ASA ph...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical anesthesia 2009-12, Vol.21 (8), p.551-554 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 554 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 551 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical anesthesia |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD |
| description | Abstract Study Objective To determine the difference in performance of two different auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitors, the A-Line AEP (AAI) and the aepEX, and their indices, during general anesthesia. Design Prospective study. Setting Operating room at a private hospital. Patients 40 ASA physical status I and II women, aged 30 to 70 years, scheduled for partial mastectomy. Interventions Anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl, and a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) was inserted. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide. Measurements and Main Results The AAI or the aepEX was continuously monitored and their performance was compared at the start of monitoring, at LMA insertion, after disturbance by electric cautery, and during anesthesia. Eighteen of 20 patients had low enough impedance to extract good electroencephalogram signals at the first electrode application with the A-Line AEP, and 14 of 20 patients, with the aepEX. The time to return to good signals after signal disturbance by electric cautery was 14 ± 3 seconds (SD) with the AAI and 19 ± 4 seconds (SD) with the aepEX ( P = 0.035). Both AAI and aepEX decreased after anesthesia induction, with significantly lower values seen in AAI than the aepEX. Conclusions The A-Line AEP (AAI) is better detects the response to painful stimuli and during recovering from noise of electric cautery than the aepEX. The aepEX shows higher values than the AAI during propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.12.024 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733347306</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0952818009002621</els_id><sourcerecordid>2744551471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-bb5bdad06545c4136f32f2f9da0547b03919b7e54aa69169544c107a9a59fd653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiMEotvCX6gsIcQpYfyVxBcEWkFBqsQBOFuOP4S32Xixs2333zPRbqnUCxdb9jwz89rvVNUlhYYCbd9vmo0d42Qm3zCAvqGsASaeVSvad7wWkqnn1QqUZHVPezirzkvZAAAG6MvqjAFlTPZyVd2t03ZncixpIimQ-bcn810iLobgs59mYvYuzikfiL9NN96RXZrxOpqxkDg5f0-2aVqA5Uh2Oe1SSGMdkDHTYawxltO-kHQfnScot2CLEs2r6kXAGv71ab-ofn35_HP9tb7-fvVt_em6tqKHuR4GOTjjoJVCWkF5GzgLLChnQIpuAK6oGjovhTGtoq2SQlgKnVFGquBayS-qd8e6KO3PHrvrbSzWjyNKQV2645yLjkOL5Jsn5Cbt84TiNAUuVL-sSLVHyuZUSvZB73LcmnxASC_O6I1-cEYvzmjKNDqDiZen8vth692_tAcrEHh7AkyxZgzZTDaWR44xxbhUyH08ch6_7Tb6rIuNfrLexeztrF2K_9fy4UmJhYrY9cYffHl8ty6YoH8sc7SMESgA1jLK_wKP2MYS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034981034</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Study Objective To determine the difference in performance of two different auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitors, the A-Line AEP (AAI) and the aepEX, and their indices, during general anesthesia. Design Prospective study. Setting Operating room at a private hospital. Patients 40 ASA physical status I and II women, aged 30 to 70 years, scheduled for partial mastectomy. Interventions Anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl, and a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) was inserted. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide. Measurements and Main Results The AAI or the aepEX was continuously monitored and their performance was compared at the start of monitoring, at LMA insertion, after disturbance by electric cautery, and during anesthesia. Eighteen of 20 patients had low enough impedance to extract good electroencephalogram signals at the first electrode application with the A-Line AEP, and 14 of 20 patients, with the aepEX. The time to return to good signals after signal disturbance by electric cautery was 14 ± 3 seconds (SD) with the AAI and 19 ± 4 seconds (SD) with the aepEX ( P = 0.035). Both AAI and aepEX decreased after anesthesia induction, with significantly lower values seen in AAI than the aepEX. Conclusions The A-Line AEP (AAI) is better detects the response to painful stimuli and during recovering from noise of electric cautery than the aepEX. The aepEX shows higher values than the AAI during propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4529</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.12.024</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20122585</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Airway management ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia & Perioperative Care ; Anesthesia, Inhalation - methods ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Anesthesiology - instrumentation ; Anesthesiology - methods ; Anesthetics, Inhalation ; Auditory evoked potential ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cautery ; Consciousness ; Electroencephalogram ; Electroencephalography - drug effects ; Electroencephalography - methods ; Evoked Potentials, Auditory - drug effects ; Female ; Fentanyl ; General anesthesia ; Humans ; Laryngeal Masks ; Mastectomy ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Monitoring, Intraoperative - instrumentation ; Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods ; Nitrous Oxide ; Pain Medicine ; Propofol ; Prospective Studies ; Signal processing ; Standard deviation ; Success ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2009-12, Vol.21 (8), p.551-554</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2009 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-bb5bdad06545c4136f32f2f9da0547b03919b7e54aa69169544c107a9a59fd653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-bb5bdad06545c4136f32f2f9da0547b03919b7e54aa69169544c107a9a59fd653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818009002621$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22292359$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20122585$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia</title><title>Journal of clinical anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><description>Abstract Study Objective To determine the difference in performance of two different auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitors, the A-Line AEP (AAI) and the aepEX, and their indices, during general anesthesia. Design Prospective study. Setting Operating room at a private hospital. Patients 40 ASA physical status I and II women, aged 30 to 70 years, scheduled for partial mastectomy. Interventions Anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl, and a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) was inserted. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide. Measurements and Main Results The AAI or the aepEX was continuously monitored and their performance was compared at the start of monitoring, at LMA insertion, after disturbance by electric cautery, and during anesthesia. Eighteen of 20 patients had low enough impedance to extract good electroencephalogram signals at the first electrode application with the A-Line AEP, and 14 of 20 patients, with the aepEX. The time to return to good signals after signal disturbance by electric cautery was 14 ± 3 seconds (SD) with the AAI and 19 ± 4 seconds (SD) with the aepEX ( P = 0.035). Both AAI and aepEX decreased after anesthesia induction, with significantly lower values seen in AAI than the aepEX. Conclusions The A-Line AEP (AAI) is better detects the response to painful stimuli and during recovering from noise of electric cautery than the aepEX. The aepEX shows higher values than the AAI during propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Inhalation - methods</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Anesthesiology - instrumentation</subject><subject>Anesthesiology - methods</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Inhalation</subject><subject>Auditory evoked potential</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cautery</subject><subject>Consciousness</subject><subject>Electroencephalogram</subject><subject>Electroencephalography - drug effects</subject><subject>Electroencephalography - methods</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Auditory - drug effects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fentanyl</subject><subject>General anesthesia</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks</subject><subject>Mastectomy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Monitoring, Intraoperative - instrumentation</subject><subject>Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods</subject><subject>Nitrous Oxide</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Signal processing</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>0952-8180</issn><issn>1873-4529</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiMEotvCX6gsIcQpYfyVxBcEWkFBqsQBOFuOP4S32Xixs2333zPRbqnUCxdb9jwz89rvVNUlhYYCbd9vmo0d42Qm3zCAvqGsASaeVSvad7wWkqnn1QqUZHVPezirzkvZAAAG6MvqjAFlTPZyVd2t03ZncixpIimQ-bcn810iLobgs59mYvYuzikfiL9NN96RXZrxOpqxkDg5f0-2aVqA5Uh2Oe1SSGMdkDHTYawxltO-kHQfnScot2CLEs2r6kXAGv71ab-ofn35_HP9tb7-fvVt_em6tqKHuR4GOTjjoJVCWkF5GzgLLChnQIpuAK6oGjovhTGtoq2SQlgKnVFGquBayS-qd8e6KO3PHrvrbSzWjyNKQV2645yLjkOL5Jsn5Cbt84TiNAUuVL-sSLVHyuZUSvZB73LcmnxASC_O6I1-cEYvzmjKNDqDiZen8vth692_tAcrEHh7AkyxZgzZTDaWR44xxbhUyH08ch6_7Tb6rIuNfrLexeztrF2K_9fy4UmJhYrY9cYffHl8ty6YoH8sc7SMESgA1jLK_wKP2MYS</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091201</creationdate><title>Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia</title><author>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-bb5bdad06545c4136f32f2f9da0547b03919b7e54aa69169544c107a9a59fd653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Inhalation - methods</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Anesthesiology - instrumentation</topic><topic>Anesthesiology - methods</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Inhalation</topic><topic>Auditory evoked potential</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cautery</topic><topic>Consciousness</topic><topic>Electroencephalogram</topic><topic>Electroencephalography - drug effects</topic><topic>Electroencephalography - methods</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Auditory - drug effects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fentanyl</topic><topic>General anesthesia</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks</topic><topic>Mastectomy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Monitoring, Intraoperative - instrumentation</topic><topic>Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods</topic><topic>Nitrous Oxide</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Signal processing</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nishiyama, Tomoki, MD, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>551</spage><epage>554</epage><pages>551-554</pages><issn>0952-8180</issn><eissn>1873-4529</eissn><abstract>Abstract Study Objective To determine the difference in performance of two different auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitors, the A-Line AEP (AAI) and the aepEX, and their indices, during general anesthesia. Design Prospective study. Setting Operating room at a private hospital. Patients 40 ASA physical status I and II women, aged 30 to 70 years, scheduled for partial mastectomy. Interventions Anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl, and a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) was inserted. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide. Measurements and Main Results The AAI or the aepEX was continuously monitored and their performance was compared at the start of monitoring, at LMA insertion, after disturbance by electric cautery, and during anesthesia. Eighteen of 20 patients had low enough impedance to extract good electroencephalogram signals at the first electrode application with the A-Line AEP, and 14 of 20 patients, with the aepEX. The time to return to good signals after signal disturbance by electric cautery was 14 ± 3 seconds (SD) with the AAI and 19 ± 4 seconds (SD) with the aepEX ( P = 0.035). Both AAI and aepEX decreased after anesthesia induction, with significantly lower values seen in AAI than the aepEX. Conclusions The A-Line AEP (AAI) is better detects the response to painful stimuli and during recovering from noise of electric cautery than the aepEX. The aepEX shows higher values than the AAI during propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>20122585</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.12.024</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0952-8180 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2009-12, Vol.21 (8), p.551-554 |
| issn | 0952-8180 1873-4529 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733347306 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Airway management Anesthesia Anesthesia & Perioperative Care Anesthesia, Inhalation - methods Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Anesthesiology - instrumentation Anesthesiology - methods Anesthetics, Inhalation Auditory evoked potential Biological and medical sciences Cautery Consciousness Electroencephalogram Electroencephalography - drug effects Electroencephalography - methods Evoked Potentials, Auditory - drug effects Female Fentanyl General anesthesia Humans Laryngeal Masks Mastectomy Medical sciences Middle Aged Monitoring, Intraoperative - instrumentation Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods Nitrous Oxide Pain Medicine Propofol Prospective Studies Signal processing Standard deviation Success Surgery |
| title | Comparison of the two different auditory evoked potentials index monitors in propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T04%3A02%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20two%20different%20auditory%20evoked%20potentials%20index%20monitors%20in%20propofol-fentanyl-nitrous%20oxide%20anesthesia&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20anesthesia&rft.au=Nishiyama,%20Tomoki,%20MD,%20PhD&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=551&rft.epage=554&rft.pages=551-554&rft.issn=0952-8180&rft.eissn=1873-4529&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.12.024&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2744551471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034981034&rft_id=info:pmid/20122585&rft_els_id=S0952818009002621&rfr_iscdi=true |