A concept for assessing interactions of general anesthetics

Bispectral index for improving intraoperative awareness and early postoperative recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The use of clinical signs, or end-tidal anaesthetic gas (ETAG), may not be reliable in measuring the hypnotic component of anaesthesia and may lead to either overdosage or underdosage resulting in adverse effects because of too deep or too light anaesthesia. Intraoperative awareness, whilst uncommon, may lead to serious psychological disturbance, and alternative methods to monitor the depth of anaesthesia may reduce the incidence of serious events. Bispectral index (BIS) is a numerical scale based on electrical activity in the brain. Using a BIS monitor to guide the dose of anaesthetic may have advantages over clinical signs or ETAG. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of BIS to reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness and early recovery times from general anaesthesia in adults undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science on 26 March 2019. We searched clinical trial registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which BIS was used to guide anaesthesia compared with standard practice which was either clinical signs or end-tidal anaesthetic gas (ETAG) to guide the anaesthetic dose. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia regardless of whether included participants had a high risk of intraoperative awareness. We included only studies in which investigators aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of BIS for its role in monitoring intraoperative depth of anaesthesia or potential improvements in early recovery times from anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 studies with 41,331 participants; two studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining studies were RCTs. All studies included participants undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Three studies recruited only participants who were at high risk of intraoperative awareness, whilst two studies specifically recruited an unselected participant group. We analysed the data according to two comparison groups: BIS versus clinical signs; and BIS versus ETAG. Forty-eight studies used clinical signs as a comparison method, which included titration of anaesthesia according to criteria such as blood pressure or heart rate and, six studies used ETAG to guide anaesthesia. Whilst BIS target values differed between studies, all were within a range of values between 40 to 60.BIS versus clinical signsWe found low-certainty evidence that BIS-guided anaesthesia may reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness in a surgical population that were unselected or at high risk of awareness (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; I2 = 61%; 27 studies; 9765 participants). However, events were rare with only five of 27 studies with reported incidences; we found that incidences of intraoperative awareness when BIS was used were three per 1000 (95% CI 2 to 6 per 1000) compared to nine per 1000 when anaesthesia was guided by clinical signs. Of the five studies with event data, one included participants at high risk of awareness and one included unselected participants, four used a structured questionnaire for assessment, and two used an adjudication process to identify confirmed or definite awareness.Early recovery times were also improved when BIS was used. We found low-certainty evidence that BIS may reduce the time to eye opening by mean difference (MD) 1.78 minutes (95% CI -2.53 to -1.03 minutes; 22 studies; 1494 participants), the time to orientation by MD 3.18 minutes (95% CI -4.03 to -2.33 minutes; 6 studies; 273 participants), and the time to discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) by MD 6.86 minutes (95% CI -11.72 to -2 minutes; 13 studies; 930 participants).BIS versus ETAGAgain, events of intraoperative awareness were extremely rare, and we found no evidence of a difference in incidences of intraoperative awareness according to whether anaesthesia was guided by BIS or by ETAG in a surgical population at unselected or at high risk of awareness (Peto OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.26; I2 = 37%; 5 studies; 26,572 participants; low-certainty evidence). Incidences of intraoperative awareness were one per 1000 in both groups. Only three of five studies reported events, two included participants at high risk of awareness and one included unselected participants, all used a structured questionnaire for assessment and an adjudication process to identify confirmed or definite awareness.One large study (9376 participants) reported a reduced time to discharge from the PACU by a median of three minutes less, and we judged the certainty of this evidence to be low. No studies measured or reported the time to eye opening and the time to orientation.Certainty of the evidenceWe used GRADE to downgrade the evidence for all outcomes to low certainty. The incidence of intraoperative awareness is so infrequent such that, despite the inclusion of some large multi-centre studies in analyses, we believed that the effect estimates were imprecise. In addition, analyses included studies that we judged to have limitations owing to some assessments of high or unclear bias and in all studies, it was not possible to blind anaesthetists to the different methods of monitoring depth of anaesthesia.Studies often did not report a clear definition of intraoperative awareness. Time points of measurement differed, and methods used to identify intraoperative awareness also differed and we expected that some assessment tools were more comprehensive than others.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative awareness is infrequent and, despite identifying a large number of eligible studies, evidence for the effectiveness of using BIS to guide anaesthetic depth is imprecise. We found that BIS-guided anaesthesia compared to clinical signs may reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness and improve early recovery times in people undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia but we found no evidence of a difference between BIS-guided anaesthesia and ETAG-guided anaesthesia. We found six studies awaiting classification and two ongoing studies; inclusion of these studies in future updates may increase the certainty of the evidence.

Neurodevelopmental implications of the general anesthesia in neonate and infants

Each year, about six million children, including 1.5 million infants, in the United States undergo surgery with general anesthesia, often requiring repeated exposures. However, a crucial question remains of whether neonatal anesthetics are safe for the developing central nervous system (CNS). General anesthesia encompasses the administration of agents that induce analgesic, sedative, and muscle relaxant effects. Although the mechanisms of action of general anesthetics are still not completely understood, recent data have suggested that anesthetics primarily modulate two major neurotransmitter receptor groups, either by inhibiting N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, or conversely by activating γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. Both of these mechanisms result in the same effect of inhibiting excitatory activity of neurons. In developing brains, which are more sensitive to disruptions in activity-dependent plasticity, this transient inhibition may have longterm neurodevelopmental consequences. Accumulating reports from preclinical studies show that anesthetics in neonates cause cellular toxicity including apoptosis and neurodegeneration in the developing brain. Importantly, animal and clinical studies indicate that exposure to general anesthetics may affect CNS development, resulting in long-lasting cognitive and behavioral deficiencies, such as learning and memory deficits, as well as abnormalities in social memory and social activity. While the casual relationship between cellular toxicity and neurological impairments is still not clear, recent reports in animal experiments showed that anesthetics in neonates can affect neurogenesis, which could be a possible mechanism underlying the chronic effect of anesthetics. Understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of anesthetic effects will help to define the scope of the problem in humans and may lead to preventive and therapeutic strategies. Therefore, in this review, we summarize the current evidence on neonatal anesthetic effects in the developmental CNS and discuss how factors influencing these processes can be translated into new therapeutic strategies.

Bispectral index for improving anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery

BACKGROUND

The use of clinical signs may not be reliable in measuring the hypnotic component of anaesthesia. The use of bispectral index (BIS) to guide the dose of anaesthetic may have certain advantages over clinical signs. This is the second update of a review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review focused on whether the incorporation of BIS into the standard practice for management of anaesthesia can reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness, consumption of anaesthetic agents, recovery time and total cost of anaesthesia in surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1990 to 31 January 2013), EMBASE (1990 to 31 January 2013) and reference lists of articles. Previously, we searched to May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing BIS with standard practice criteria for titration of anaesthetic agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and analysed the data. We contacted study authors for further details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials. In studies using clinical signs as standard practice, the results demonstrated a significant effect of the BIS-guided anaesthesia in reducing the risk of intraoperative awareness among surgical patients at high risk for awareness (7761 participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.48). This effect was not demonstrated in studies using end tidal anaesthetic gas (ETAG) monitoring as standard practice (26,530 participants; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.26). BIS-guided anaesthesia reduced the requirement for propofol by 1.32 mg/kg/hr (672 participants; 95% CI -1.91 to -0.73) and for volatile anaesthetics (desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane) by 0.65 minimal alveolar concentration equivalents (MAC) (95% CI -1.01 to -0.28) in 985 participants. Irrespective of the anaesthetics used, BIS reduced the following recovery times: time for eye opening (2557 participants; by 1.93 min, 95% CI -2.70 to -1.16), response to verbal command (777 participants; by 2.73 min, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.54), time to extubation (1501 participants; by 2.62 min, 95% CI -3.46 to -1.78), and time to orientation (373 participants; by 3.06 min, 95% CI -3.63 to -2.50). BIS shortened the duration of postanaesthesia care unit stay by 6.75 min (1953 participants; 95% CI -11.20 to -2.31) but did not significantly reduce the time to home readiness (329 participants; -7.01 min, 95% CI -30.11 to 16.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

BIS-guided anaesthesia can reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness in surgical patients at high risk for awareness in comparison to using clinical signs as a guide for anaesthetic depth. BIS-guided anaesthesia and ETAG-guided anaesthesia may be equivalent in protection against intraoperative awareness but the evidence for this is inconclusive. In addition, anaesthesia guided by BIS kept within the recommended range improves anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery from relatively deep anaesthesia.