We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Comparison of closed-loop controlled administration of propofol using Bispectral Index as the controlled variable versus "standard practice" controlled administration.
Anesthesiology 2001 July
BACKGROUND: This report describes a new closed-loop control system for propofol that uses the Bispectral Index (BIS) as the controlled variable in a patient-individualized, adaptive, model-based control system, and compares this system with manually controlled administration of propofol using hemodynamic and somatic changes to guide anesthesia.
METHODS: Twenty female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, who were scheduled for gynecologic laparotomy were included to receive propofolremifentanil anesthesia. In group I, propofol was titrated using a BIS-guided, model-based, closed-loop system. The BIS target was set at 50. In group II, propofol was titrated using classical hemodynamic signs of (in)adequate anesthesia. Performance of control during induction and maintenance of anesthesia were compared between both groups using BIS as the controlled variable in group I and the reference variable in group II, and, conversely, the systolic blood pressure as the controlled variable in group II and the reference variable in group I. At the end of anesthesia, recovery profiles between groups were compared.
RESULTS: Although patients undergoing manual induction of anesthesia in group II at 300 ml/h reached a BIS level of 50 faster than patients undergoing open-loop, computer-controlled induction in group I, manual induction caused a more pronounced initial overshoot of the BIS target. This resulted in a more pronounced decrease in blood pressure in group II. During the maintenance phase, better control of BIS and systolic blood pressure was found in group I compared with group II. Recovery was faster in group I.
CONCLUSION: A closed-loop system for propofol administration using the BIS as a controlled variable together with a model-based controller is clinically acceptable during general anesthesia.
METHODS: Twenty female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, who were scheduled for gynecologic laparotomy were included to receive propofolremifentanil anesthesia. In group I, propofol was titrated using a BIS-guided, model-based, closed-loop system. The BIS target was set at 50. In group II, propofol was titrated using classical hemodynamic signs of (in)adequate anesthesia. Performance of control during induction and maintenance of anesthesia were compared between both groups using BIS as the controlled variable in group I and the reference variable in group II, and, conversely, the systolic blood pressure as the controlled variable in group II and the reference variable in group I. At the end of anesthesia, recovery profiles between groups were compared.
RESULTS: Although patients undergoing manual induction of anesthesia in group II at 300 ml/h reached a BIS level of 50 faster than patients undergoing open-loop, computer-controlled induction in group I, manual induction caused a more pronounced initial overshoot of the BIS target. This resulted in a more pronounced decrease in blood pressure in group II. During the maintenance phase, better control of BIS and systolic blood pressure was found in group I compared with group II. Recovery was faster in group I.
CONCLUSION: A closed-loop system for propofol administration using the BIS as a controlled variable together with a model-based controller is clinically acceptable during general anesthesia.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app