Comparison of the surgical Pleth Index™ with haemodynamic variables to assess nociception-anti-nociception balance during general anaesthesia.

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, CHU Liege, Liege, Belgium.
BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia (Impact Factor: 4.24). 11/2010; 106(1):101-11. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeq291
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) is proposed as a means to assess the balance between noxious stimulation and the anti-nociceptive effects of anaesthesia. In this study, we compared SPI, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) as a means of assessing this balance.
We studied a standard stimulus [head-holder insertion (HHI)] and varying remifentanil concentrations (CeREMI) in a group of patients undergoing neurosurgery. Patients receiving target-controlled infusions were randomly assigned to one of the three CeREMI (2, 4, or 6 ng m⁻¹), whereas propofol target was fixed at 3 µg ml⁻¹. Steady state for both targets was achieved before HHI. Intravascular volume status (IVS) was evaluated using respiratory variations in arterial pressure. Prediction probability (Pk) and ordinal regression were used to assess SPI, MAP, and HR performance at indicating CeREMI, and the influence of IVS and chronic treatment for high arterial pressure, as possible confounding factors.
The maximum SPI, MAP, or HR observed after HHI correctly indicated CeREMI in one of the two patients [accurate prediction rate (APR)=0.5]. When IVS and chronic treatment for high arterial pressure were taken into account, the APR was 0.6 for each individual variable and 0.8 when all of them predicted the same CeREMI. That increase in APR paralleled an increase in Pk from 0.63 to 0.89.
SPI, HR, and MAP are of comparable value at gauging noxious stimulation-CeREMI balance. Their interpretation is improved by taking account of IVS, treatment for chronic high arterial pressure, and concordance between their predictions.

  • Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 09/2014; 58(8):911-3. · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At present, short-acting drugs are used in order to achieve the three components of anaesthesia, that is, analgesia, hypnosis and immobility. Assessment of the 'analgesia' component in daily clinical routine is, in contrast to the other components, still based on very unspecific clinical 'end' points such as movement, tearing, tachycardia or hypertension. Individually tailored analgesia, however, should enable to maintain an individual nociceptive-anti-nociceptive balance and better avoid these unwanted responses to surgical stimulation. During the last decade, a variety of monitoring systems were developed in order to assess the nociceptive balance. These are, among others, based on the frontal electroencephalography (EEG) and electromyography (EMG) response, evaluation of the autonomic state and autonomic reactions, spinal reflex pathways and calculated drug concentrations. The present review gives an overview on the topic of 'analgesia' monitoring, the available monitoring systems and their clinical evaluation. Most of the systems allow a rapid detection of the nociceptive input; nonetheless, the prediction of an autonomic or somatic response has still to be improved. Several studies reported fewer unwanted events, reduced opioid consumption and shorter emergence from anaesthesia, when opioid administration was based upon monitoring of the nociceptive-anti-nociceptive balance. However, research on the mechanisms of pain processing and for better tools to assess the 'analgesia' component has to continue in order to improve our daily practice.
    Best practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology. 06/2013; 27(2):235-47.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of the present study was to validate the qCON index of hypnotic effect and the qNOX index of nociception. Both indices are derived from the frontal electroencephalogram (EEG) and implemented in the qCON 2000 monitor (Quantium Medical, Barcelona, Spain).
    Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 07/2014; · 2.36 Impact Factor


Available from
May 28, 2014