Increased variation of the response index of nociception during noxious stimulation in patients during general anaesthesia

2011 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tia J.M. Sarén-Koivuniemi ◽  
Arvi M. Yli-Hankala ◽  
Mark J. van Gils
Keyword(s):  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Noxious Stimulation ◽  
Response Index

scholarly journals Probability to tolerate laryngoscopy and noxious stimulation response index as general indicators of the anaesthetic potency of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (5) ◽  
pp. 624-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.N. Hannivoort ◽  
H.E.M. Vereecke ◽  
J.H. Proost ◽  
B.E.K. Heyse ◽  
D.J. Eleveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Noxious Stimulation ◽  
Response Index ◽  
Anaesthetic Potency

scholarly journals Noxious stimulation in children receiving general anaesthesia evokes an increase in delta frequency brain activity

Pain ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (11) ◽  
pp. 2368-2376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Hartley ◽  
Ravi Poorun ◽  
Sezgi Goksan ◽  
Alan Worley ◽  
Stewart Boyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Noxious Stimulation

Extending the noxious stimulation response index for volatile narcosis

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. e41
Author(s):  
Marcus Köny ◽  
Monika Kwiecien ◽  
Michael Czaplik ◽  
Rolf Rossaint ◽  
Steffen Leonhardt
Keyword(s):  
Noxious Stimulation ◽  
Response Index

scholarly journals Noxious Stimulation Response Index

2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 872-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Luginbühl ◽  
Peter M. Schumacher ◽  
Pascal Vuilleumier ◽  
Hugo Vereecke ◽  
Björn Heyse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interaction Model ◽  
Sedation Score ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Noxious Stimulation ◽  
Tetanic Stimulation ◽  
Response Index ◽  
Effect Site ◽  
Potential Index ◽  
Hierarchical Interaction ◽  
American Society

Background The noxious stimulation response index (NSRI) is a novel anesthetic depth index ranging between 100 and 0, computed from hypnotic and opioid effect-site concentrations using a hierarchical interaction model. The authors validated the NSRI on previously published data. Methods The data encompassed 44 women, American Society of Anesthesiology class I, randomly allocated to three groups receiving remifentanil infusions targeting 0, 2, and 4 ng/ml. Propofol was given at stepwise increasing effect-site target concentrations. At each concentration, the observer assessment of alertness and sedation score, the response to eyelash and tetanic stimulation of the forearm, the bispectral index (BIS), and the acoustic evoked potential index (AAI) were recorded. The authors computed the NSRI for each stimulation and calculated the prediction probabilities (PKs) using a bootstrap technique. The PKs of the different predictors were compared with multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Results The median (95% CI) PK of the NSRI, BIS, and AAI for loss of response to tetanic stimulation was 0.87 (0.75-0.96), 0.73 (0.58-0.85), and 0.70 (0.54-0.84), respectively. The PK of effect-site propofol concentration, BIS, and AAI for observer assessment of alertness and sedation score and loss of eyelash reflex were between 0.86 (0.80-0.92) and 0.92 (0.83-0.99), whereas the PKs of NSRI were 0.77 (0.68-0.85) and 0.82 (0.68-0.92). The PK of the NSRI for BIS and AAI was 0.66 (0.58-0.73) and 0.63 (0.55-0.70), respectively. Conclusion The NSRI conveys information that better predicts the analgesic component of anesthesia than AAI, BIS, or predicted propofol or remifentanil concentrations. Prospective validation studies in the clinical setting are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document