Response of bispectral index to neuromuscular block in awake volunteers

Response of the GE Entropy™ monitor to neuromuscular block in awake volunteers

BACKGROUND

The GE Entropy™ monitor analyses the frontal electroencephalogram (EEG) and generates two indices intended to represent the degree of anaesthetic drug effect on the brain. It is frequently used in the context of neuromuscular block. We have shown that a similar device, the Bispectral Index monitor (BIS), does not generate correct values in awake volunteers when neuromuscular blocking drugs are administered.

METHODS

We replayed the EEGs recorded during awake paralysis from the original study to an Entropy monitor via a calibrated electronic playback system. Each EEG was replayed 30 times to evaluate the consistency of the Entropy output.

RESULTS

Both State Entropy and Response Entropy decreased during periods of neuromuscular block to values consistent with anaesthesia, despite there being no change in conscious state (State Entropy <60 in eight of nine rocuronium trials and nine of 10 suxamethonium trials). Entropy values did not return to pre-test levels until after the return of movement. Entropy did not generate exactly the same results when the same EEG was replayed multiple times, which is primarily because of a cyclical state within the Entropy system itself.

CONCLUSIONS

The GE Entropy™ monitor requires muscle activity to generate correct values in an awake subject. It could therefore be unreliable at detecting awareness in patients who have been given neuromuscular blocking drugs. In addition, Entropy does not generate the same result each time it is presented with the same EEG.

Five commercial 'depth of anaesthesia' monitors provide discordant clinical recommendations in response to identical emergence-like EEG signals

BACKGROUND

'Depth of anaesthesia' monitors claim to measure hypnotic depth during general anaesthesia from the EEG, and clinicians could reasonably expect agreement between monitors if presented with the same EEG signal. We took 52 EEG signals showing intraoperative patterns of diminished anaesthesia, similar to those that occur during emergence (after surgery) and subjected them to analysis by five commercially available monitors.

METHODS

We compared five monitors (BIS, Entropy-SE, Narcotrend, qCON, and Sedline) to see if index values remained within, or moved out of, each monitors' recommended index range for general anaesthesia for at least 2 min during a period of supposed lighter anaesthesia, as observed by changes in the EEG spectrogram obtained in a previous study.

RESULTS

Of the 52 cases, 27 (52%) had at least one monitor warning of potentially inadequate hypnosis (index above range) and 16 of the 52 cases (31%) had at least one monitor signifying excessive hypnotic depth (index below clinical range). Of the 52 cases, only 16 (31%) showed concordance between all five monitors. Nineteen cases (36%) had one monitor discordant compared with the remaining four, and 17 cases (33%) had two monitors in disagreement with the remaining three.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinical providers still rely on index values and manufacturer's recommended ranges for titration decision making. That two-thirds of cases showed discordant recommendations given identical EEG data, and that one-third signified excessive hypnotic depth where the EEG would suggest a lighter hypnotic state, emphasizes the importance of personalised EEG interpretation as an essential clinical skill.