• Peter J Schuller, Jan P G Pretorius, and Kym B Newbery.
• Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Cairns Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns, QLD, Australia. peterjschuller@gmail.com.
• J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Jun 1; 36 (3): 675-685.

AbstractThe BIS and Entropy systems are used as indicators of anaesthetic drug effect, and can also record EEGs in digital form. A number of studies have used such recordings for analysis, even though information about bandwidth and fidelity has not been provided by the manufacturers. In this study we consider these systems purely as EEG recording devices, and evaluate their suitability for quantitative analysis. Using a calibrated electronic testing system, we played an artificial test signal of known amplitude with frequency varying from 0.01 to 400 Hz into the BIS and Entropy EEG systems, and saved the recording in each of their supported recording modes. The amplitude of the recording at each frequency was then used to derive the frequency response curves, as well as the 3 dB and 0.5 dB points for each mode. There are important differences between the various BIS and Entropy recordings. The BIS 256 Hz and the Entropy 400 Hz recordings are broadly comparable, although Entropy has a slightly reduced response above 50 Hz and below 1 Hz. The BIS 128 Hz recording has a somewhat reduced bandwidth, due to its relatively low sampling rate. The Entropy 100 Hz recording in the Datex-Ohmeda S/5 monitor has a flawed implementation, leading to aliasing of signals over 50 Hz and potential distortion of the recording, while in the GE Carescape it has an uneven response and a narrowed bandwidth. Consequently, it is important to know which specific host monitor was used when an Entropy 100 Hz recording was made. In summary, the choice of recording device and host monitor may affect the results of some quantitative EEG analysis, and some previously published studies may need to be re-evaluated.© 2021. Crown.

15 keywords...

hide…