Differential effects of sevoflurane and propofol on an electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials

Continuous Detection of Stimulus Brightness Differences Using Visual Evoked Potentials in Healthy Volunteers with Closed Eyes

Background/Objectives: We defined the value of a machine learning algorithm to distinguish between the EEG response to no light or any light stimulations, and between light stimulations with different brightnesses in awake volunteers with closed eyelids. This new method utilizing EEG analysis is visionary in the understanding of visual signal processing and will facilitate the deepening of our knowledge concerning anesthetic research. Methods: X-gradient boosting models were used to classify the cortical response to visual stimulation (no light vs. light stimulations and two lights with different brightnesses). For each of the two classifications, three scenarios were tested: training and prediction in all participants (all), training and prediction in one participant (individual), and training across all but one participant with prediction performed in the participant left out (one out). Results: Ninety-four Caucasian adults were included. The machine learning algorithm had a very high predictive value and accuracy in differentiating between no light and any light stimulations (AUCROCall: 0.96; accuracyall: 0.94; AUCROCindividual: 0.96 ± 0.05, accuracyindividual: 0.94 ± 0.05; AUCROConeout: 0.98 ± 0.04; accuracyoneout: 0.96 ± 0.04). The machine learning algorithm was highly predictive and accurate in distinguishing between light stimulations with different brightnesses (AUCROCall: 0.97; accuracyall: 0.91; AUCROCindividual: 0.98 ± 0.04, accuracyindividual: 0.96 ± 0.04; AUCROConeout: 0.96 ± 0.05; accuracyoneout: 0.93 ± 0.06). The predictive value and accuracy of both classification tasks was comparable between males and females. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms could almost continuously and reliably differentiate between the cortical EEG responses to no light or light stimulations using visual evoked potentials in awake female and male volunteers with eyes closed. Our findings may open new possibilities for the use of visual evoked potentials in the clinical and intraoperative setting.

Effect of desflurane anesthesia on flash visual evoked potential monitoring in patients undergoing spine surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Flash visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) are a reliable method for protecting visual function during spine surgery in prone position. However, the popularization and application of FVEPs remain limited due to the unclear influence of various anesthetics on FVEPs. Exploring the effects of anesthetic drugs on FVEP and establishing appropriate anesthesia maintenance methods are particularly important for promoting and applying FVEP. According to the conventional concept, inhaled narcotic drugs significantly affect the success of FVEP monitoring, FVEP extraction, and interpretation. Nonetheless, our previous study demonstrated that sevoflurane-propofol balanced anesthesia was a practicable regimen for FVEPs. Desflurane is widely used in general anesthesia for its rapid recovery properties. As the effect of desflurane on FVEP remains unclear, this trial will investigate the effect of different inhaled concentrations of desflurane anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs during spine surgery, aiming to identify more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEP.

METHODS/ DESIGN

A total of 70 patients undergoing elective spinal surgery will be enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled, open-label, patient-assessor-blinded, superiority trial and randomly assigned to the low inhaled concentration of desflurane group (LD group) maintained with desflurane-propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia or high inhaled concentration of desflurane group (HD group) maintained with desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia maintenance group at a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be monitored for intraoperative FVEPs, and the baseline will be measured half an hour after induction under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). After that, patients will receive 0.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of desflurane combined with propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance in the LD group, while 0.7-1.0 MAC of desflurane and remifentanil will be maintained in the HD group. The primary outcome is the N75-P100 amplitude 1 h after the induction of anesthesia. We intend to use the dual measure evaluation, dual data entry, and statistical analysis by double trained assessors to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial aims to explore the superiority effect of low inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia versus high inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with remifentanil anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs. The study is meant to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and might guide the anesthetic regimen for FVEPs. The conclusion is expected to provide high-quality evidence for the effect of desflurane on FVEPs and aim to explore more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEPs and visual function protection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on July 15, 2022.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT05465330.

Application of remimazolam-0.6% sevoflurane anesthesia for flash visual evoked potential monitoring during pituitary adenoma resection: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Flash visual evoked potential (FVEP) is a critical method for monitoring intraoperative visual function during neurosurgery. A new benzodiazepine drug called remimazolam has recently been used for general anesthesia. However, the impact of remimazolam on FVEP remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate how remimazolam, in comparison to propofol, when combined with 0.6% sevoflurane anesthesia, affects the FVEP waveform during pituitary adenoma resection.

METHODS

Overall, 36 patients undergoing pituitary adenoma resection under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam group (Group R) or the propofol group (Group P) in a prospective, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. For anesthesia induction, a bolus of 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam or 2 mg/kg propofol was intravenously infused for approximately one minute. The anesthesia was maintained by continuous infusion of either remimazolam (0.7-1.0 mg/kg/h) or propofol (4-6 mg/kg/h), in combination with 0.6% sevoflurane, aimed at sustaining the bispectral index (BIS) within the range of 40-60. The primary outcome was the N75-P100 amplitude of FVEP recorded at approximately 20 min after intubation (T0). 10% of the amplitude at T0 in group P was defined as the non-inferiority margin (δ). Confidence interval testing was used to evaluate the non-inferiority hypothesis. The secondary outcomes covered the P100 latency of FVEP, electroretinogram (ERG) b wave amplitude, demographic characteristics, hemodynamics, and occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The BIS index during anesthesia was comparable between the groups at the same measured time points (P > 0.05). The N75-P100 amplitude at T0 in group R was 7.64 ± 1.36 µV, while it was 6.96 ± 0.95 µV in group P (P = 0.09), with a mean difference of 0.68 µV (95% CI, -0.11 µV to 1.48 µV). The δ was set at 0.7 and the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded the -δ. Both remimazolam and propofol had little effect on ERG b-wave amplitudes. At the designated time points, FVEP amplitude and P100 latency displayed no appreciable variation between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events related to anesthesia, needle electrodes, or surgery between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that remimazolam-0.6% sevoflurane is non-inferior to propofol-0.6% sevoflurane for general anesthesia, based on the FVEP N75-P100 amplitude. The electrophysiological data obtained in both groups indicate that reproducible and stable FVEP and ERG waveforms can be acquired at set time points. Therefore, for reliable FVEP monitoring, remimazolam-0.6% sevoflurane appears to be a safe and effective protocol in general anesthesia.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

This study was registered on chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200056803, 17/02/2022).

Reliability of intraoperative visual evoked potentials (iVEPs) in monitoring visual function during endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To refine a reliable and reproducible intraoperative visual evoked potentials (iVEPs) monitoring protocol during endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. To assess the reliability of baseline iVEPs in predicting preoperative visual status and perioperative iVEP variation in predicting postoperative visual outcome.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients harboring tumors of the pituitary region were included. All patients underwent endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) with iVEPs monitoring, using a totally intravenous anesthetic protocol. Ophthalmological evaluation included visual acuity and visual field studies.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, visual acuity was reduced in 86% and visual field in 76.5% of cases. Baseline iVEPs amplitude was significantly correlated with preoperative visual acuity and visual field (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0004, respectively), confirming the reliability of the neurophysiological/anesthetic protocol implemented. Importantly, perioperatively the variation in iVEPs amplitude was significantly correlated with the changes in visual acuity (p < 0.0001) and visual field (p = 0.0013). ROC analysis confirmed that iVEPs are an accurate predictor of perioperiative visual acuity improvement, with a 100% positive predictive value in patients with preoperative vision loss.

CONCLUSIONS

iVEPs during EEA is highly reliable in describing preoperative visual function and can accurately predict postoperative vision improvement.

SIGNIFICANCE

iVEPs represent a promising resource for carrying out a more effective and safe endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery.

Visually evoked potentials (VEPs) across the visual field in hearing and deaf cats

Introduction

Congenitally deaf cats perform better on visual localization tasks than hearing cats, and this advantage has been attributed to the posterior auditory field. Successful visual localization requires both visual processing of the target and timely generation of an action to approach the target. Activation of auditory cortex in deaf subjects during visual localization in the peripheral visual field can occur either via bottom-up stimulus-driven and/or top-down goal-directed pathways.

Methods

In this study, we recorded visually evoked potentials (VEPs) in response to a reversing checkerboard stimulus presented in the hemifield contralateral to the recorded hemisphere in both hearing and deaf cats under light anesthesia.

Results

Although VEP amplitudes and latencies were systematically modulated by stimulus eccentricity, we found little evidence of changes in VEP in deaf cats that can explain their behavioral advantage. A statistical trend was observed, showing larger peak amplitudes and shorter peak latencies in deaf subjects for stimuli in the near- and mid-peripheral field. Additionally, latency of the P1 wave component had a larger inter-sweep variation in deaf subjects.

Discussion

Our results suggested that cross-modal plasticity following deafness does not play a major part in cortical processing of the peripheral visual field when the "vision for action" system is not recruited.

Non-invasive visual evoked potentials under sevoflurane versus ketamine-xylazine in rats

Background

Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) quantifies electrical signals produced in visual cortex in response to visual stimuli. VEP elicited by light flashes is a useful biomarker to evaluate visual function in preclinical models and it can be recorded in awake or anaesthetised state. Different types of anaesthesia influence VEP properties, such as latency, which measures the propagation speed along nerve fibers, and amplitude that quantifies the power of electrical signal.

Aim

The goal of this work is to compare VEPs elicited in Dark Agouti rats under two types of anaesthesia: volatile sevoflurane or injectable ketamine-xylazine.

Methods

VEP latency, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio and recording duration were measured in Dark Agouti rats randomly assigned to two groups, the first subjected to volatile sevoflurane and the second to injectable ketamine-xylazine. Taking advantage of non-invasive flash-VEP recording through epidermal cup electrodes, three time points of VEP recordings were assessed in two weeks intervals.

Results

VEP recorded under ketamine-xylazine showed longer latency and higher amplitude compared with sevoflurane, with analogous repeatability over time. However, sevoflurane tended to suppress electrical signals from visual cortex, resulting in a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover, VEP procedure duration lasted longer in rats anaesthetised with sevoflurane than ketamine-xylazine.

Conclusions

In Dark Agouti rats, the use of different anaesthesia can influence VEP components in terms of latency and amplitude. Notably, sevoflurane and ketamine-xylazine revealed satisfying repeatability over time, which is critical to perform reliable follow-up studies. Ketamine-xylazine allowed to obtain more clearly discernible VEP components and less background noise, together with a quicker recording procedure and a consequently improved animal safety and welfare.

Normative Data of Ocular Biometry, Optical Coherence Tomography, and Electrophysiology Conducted for Cynomolgus Macaque Monkeys

Purpose

To present normative data of optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters, electrophysiological tests, and optical biometry conducted for cynomolgus monkeys.

Methods

Multimodal examinations were performed for 11 adult cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis, weighing 2.6–7.5 kg, aged 45–99 months). A-scan biometry was performed to measure ocular biometry. OCT images were obtained at 30° and 55°. After the pupils were fully dilated, electroretinogram (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) were recorded with a commercial system using a contact lens electrode.

Results

All cynomolgus monkeys were males. The mean axial length was 17.92 ± 0.34 mm. The central total retinal layer (TRL) and subfoveal choroidal thicknesses were 286.27 ± 18.43 and 234.73 ± 53.93 µm, respectively. The TRL and nerve fiber layer thickness was greater in the nasal than in other quadrants in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study circle in the macula. Peripheral TRL and ganglion cell complex thickness on the temporal outside the vascular arcades were lower than on the other sides. The peak latency of a-wave and b-wave in scotopic and photopic 3.0 ERG was 14.78 ± 1.00 and 32.89 ± 1.81 ms, and 12.91 ± 1.03 and 31.79 ± 2.16 ms, respectively. The n2 wave peak latency of VEP was 15.21 ± 8.07 ms. The a-wave peak latency of ERG and the n2 wave peak latency of VEP negatively correlated with age.

Conclusions

The normative ocular biometric, electrophysiological test, and OCT parametric data of cynomolgus monkeys could serve as reference values for further preclinical studies.

Translational Relevance

We present normative data of cynomolgus monkeys’ eyes, an adequate animal model for preclinical studies.

Repeated measurements of ERGs and VEPs using chloral hydrate sedation and propofol anesthesia in young children

PURPOSE

Sedation with chloral hydrate or anesthesia using propofol allow ocular examination and testing in young children, but these drugs may affect electrophysiologic recordings. We compared the flash and pattern ERGs and VEPs recorded with each drug in a cohort of young children enrolled in a prospective study of optic nerve hypoplasia (ONH) syndrome.

METHODS

ERGs and VEPs to light-adapted, standard, full-field flashes, to standard and steady-state pattern-reversal (PR) were recorded with cycloplegia in 9 participants. Age range at the first session, with chloral hydrate was 8-23 mo; at the second session with propofol it was 20-29 mo. Examiners masked to the drug and clinical conditions measured the waveforms for longitudinal, paired comparisons between the sessions.

RESULTS

Flash ERG amplitudes did not differ between sessions; peak times were longer at the second session (propofol) by clinically insignificant amounts (< 2 ms, p = 0.002). Standard PERGs had larger amplitudes and later peaks in the second session (propofol) than with chloral hydrate (P50 2.9 vs 4.7 μV, p = 0.016 and 43 vs 52 ms, p < 0.001; N95 4.0 vs 6.1 μV, p = 0.003 and 91 vs 98.5 ms p = 0.034.). These differences were present for those with an interval of  > 10 mo between sessions (n = 5, 10 eyes) but not for those with a shorter inter-test interval (< 8 mo, p > 0.05, n = 4). Magnitudes of the steady-state PERGs did not differ between tests but the waveforms had earlier peaks at the second test with propofol. Flash VEP waveforms were present in 10/18 eyes and showed 72% agreement for recordability between sessions. Standard pattern VEPs were recordable in only a few eyes in this cohort with ONH.

CONCLUSIONS

Light-adapted flash ERG waveforms were generally similar with chloral hydrate and with propofol. Larger PERGs with later peaks, found in the second session (propofol) could reflect maturation of the PERG generators, as the differences found were associated with a greater age difference between the sessions, but we do not rule out that small differences in the waveforms may be drug-related. There are insufficient VEP data from these children with ONH to identify drug-related or maturational effects on VEPs.