• Eur J Anaesthesiol · Jan 2021

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Comparison of adequacy of anaesthesia monitoring with standard clinical practice monitoring during routine general anaesthesia: An international, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

    • Matthias Gruenewald, Jarkko Harju, Benedikt Preckel, Zsolt Molnár, Arvi Yli-Hankala, Florian Rosskopf, Lena Koers, Agnes Orban, Berthold Bein, and AoA Study Group.
    • Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Jan 1; 38 (1): 73-81.

    BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that monitoring the levels of both hypnosis and antinociception could reduce periods of inadequate anaesthesia. However, the evidence regarding associated benefits of this monitoring is still limited.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to confirm that guidance of anaesthesia by depth of hypnosis and antinociception monitoring decreases the number of inadequate anaesthesia events in comparison with standard clinical practice.DesignA multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe study was conducted in four European University hospitals in four different countries between December 2013 and November 2016.PatientsThe study population consisted of a total of 494 adult patients undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation.InterventionsThe patients were allocated to one of two groups. The first group was treated using Entropy for depth of hypnosis and surgical pleth index to determine depth of antinociception (adequacy of anaesthesia group; AoA group). The second group was monitored using standard monitoring alone (control group). Anaesthesia was conducted with target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome of the study was the number of total unwanted events for example signs of inadequately light or unintentionally deep anaesthesia.ResultsEvidence of inadequate anaesthesia had an incidence of around 0.7 events per patient in both groups with no difference between groups (P = 0.519). In the AoA group, the overall consumption of propofol was significantly reduced (6.9 vs. 7.5 mg kg h, P = 0.008) in comparison with the control group. The consumption of remifentanil was equal in both groups. The times to emergence [8.0 vs. 9.6 min (P = 0.005)] and full recovery in the postanaesthesia care unit (P = 0.043) were significantly shorter in the AoA group. No differences were seen in postoperative pain scores or in the use of analgesics.ConclusionIn the current study, the guidance of total intravenous anaesthesia by Entropy and surgical pleth index in comparison with standard monitoring alone was not able to validate reduction of unwanted anaesthesia events. However, there was a reduction in the use of propofol, and shorter times for emergence and time spent in the postanaesthesia care unit.Trial Registrationat ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01928875.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…