• S L Shafer and D R Stanski.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Dr., Stanford, CA 94305A, USA. steven.shafer@stanford.edu
• Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008 Jan 1(182):409-23.

AbstractIn this chapter, drawn largely from the synthesis of material that we first presented in the sixth edition of Miller's Anesthesia, Chap 31 (Stanski and Shafer 2005; used by permission of the publisher), we have defined anesthetic depth as the probability of non-response to stimulation, calibrated against the strength of the stimulus, the difficulty of suppressing the response, and the drug-induced probability of non-responsiveness at defined effect site concentrations. This definition requires measurement of multiple different stimuli and responses at well-defined drug concentrations. There is no one stimulus and response measurement that will capture depth of anesthesia in a clinically or scientifically meaningful manner. The "clinical art" of anesthesia requires calibration of these observations of stimuli and responses (verbal responses, movement, tachycardia) against the dose and concentration of anesthetic drugs used to reduce the probability of response, constantly adjusting the administered dose to achieve the desired anesthetic depth. In our definition of "depth of anesthesia" we define the need for two components to create the anesthetic state: hypnosis created with drugs such as propofol or the inhalational anesthetics and analgesia created with the opioids or nitrous oxide. We demonstrate the scientific evidence that profound degrees of hypnosis in the absence of analgesia will not prevent the hemodynamic responses to profoundly noxious stimuli. Also, profound degrees of analgesia do not guarantee unconsciousness. However, the combination of hypnosis and analgesia suppresses hemodynamic response to noxious stimuli and guarantees unconsciousness.

29 keywords...

hide…