From the *Department of Anaesthesia, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; †Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; ‡Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong, China; §Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth; ‖School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia; ¶Department of Anaesthesia, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; #Department of Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; **Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne; and ††Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anesth Analg. 2014 May;118(5):981-6. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000209.
Deep general anesthesia has been associated with increased mortality in 5 observational studies. The association may be causal or an epiphenomenon due to increased anesthetic sensitivity in high-risk patients. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of performing a definitive randomized controlled trial. The aims of the study were to determine whether anesthetic depth targeting in a high-risk group was feasible and to document anesthetic doses and arterial blood pressures associated with "deep" and "light" general anesthesia.
ASA physical status III and IV patients, aged ≥60 years, having surgery lasting ≥2 hours, with expected hospital stay ≥2 days, and receiving general anesthesia were randomly allocated to a Bispectral Index (BIS) or spectral entropy (SE) target of 35 ("low" group) or 50 ("high" group). The primary end point was mean BIS or SE. Secondary end points were postanesthesia care unit length of stay and pain scores, quality of recovery score, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, and death. A composite end point of postoperative complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, heart failure, and death) was determined at 1 year.
One hundred twenty-five patients were recruited. The mean of the median BIS/SE values for each patient during the maintenance phase of anesthesia in the low and high groups was significantly different: 39 vs 48 (mean difference 8 [95% confidence interval {CI95}, 6 to 10], P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in mean volatile anesthetic administration (minimum alveolar concentration): 0.98 vs 0.64 (mean difference -0.35 [CI95, -0.44 to -0.26], P < 0.001) and target propofol concentrations: 4.0 vs 3.1 μg/mL (mean difference -0.8 [CI95, -1.2 to -0.3], P = 0.004). Intraoperative mean arterial blood pressures were similar (85 vs 87 mm Hg; mean difference 2 [CI95, -2 to 6], P = 0.86), and there were no differences in short-term recovery characteristics or hospital length of stay. There was a significant difference in the incidence of wound infection at 30 days (13% vs 3%; risk difference -10% [CI95, -21 to -0.1], P = 0.04). At 1 year, the composite rates of complications in the low and high groups were 28% and 17% (risk difference -11 [CI95, -25 to 4], P = 0.15) and mortality rates were 12% and 9%, respectively (risk difference -2 [CI95, -14 to 9], P = 0.70).
This pilot study demonstrated that depth of anesthesia targeting with BIS or SE was achievable in a high-risk population with adequate separation of processed electroencephalogram monitor targets. The expected incidence of postoperative complications and mortality occurred. We conclude that a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial is feasible.
在 5 项观察性研究中,深度全身麻醉与死亡率增加相关。这种关联可能是因果关系,也可能是由于高危患者对麻醉的敏感性增加而产生的一种偶然现象。我们进行了一项试点研究,以评估进行确定性随机对照试验的可行性。该研究的目的是确定高危人群中麻醉深度靶向是否可行,并记录与“深度”和“轻度”全身麻醉相关的麻醉剂量和动脉血压。
ASA 身体状况 III 和 IV 级患者,年龄≥60 岁,手术持续时间≥2 小时,预计住院时间≥2 天,并接受全身麻醉,随机分配至双频谱指数(BIS)或光谱熵(SE)目标值 35(“低”组)或 50(“高”组)。主要终点是平均 BIS 或 SE。次要终点是麻醉后护理单元的停留时间和疼痛评分、恢复质量评分、住院时间、术后并发症和死亡。在 1 年时确定术后并发症(肺炎、心肌梗死、中风、肺栓塞、心力衰竭和死亡)的复合终点。
共招募了 125 名患者。低组和高组患者在麻醉维持阶段的中位数 BIS/SE 值的平均值差异显著:39 比 48(平均差异 8 [95%置信区间{CI95},6 至 10],P<0.001)。挥发性麻醉剂的平均用量(最低肺泡浓度)也存在显著差异:0.98 比 0.64(平均差异-0.35 [CI95,-0.44 至 -0.26],P<0.001)和目标丙泊酚浓度:4.0 比 3.1 μg/mL(平均差异-0.8 [CI95,-1.2 至 -0.3],P=0.004)。术中平均动脉血压相似(85 比 87 mmHg;平均差异 2 [CI95,-2 至 6],P=0.86),短期恢复特征或住院时间无差异。术后 30 天的伤口感染发生率有显著差异(13%比 3%;风险差异-10% [CI95,-21 至 -0.1],P=0.04)。在 1 年时,低组和高组的并发症综合发生率分别为 28%和 17%(风险差异-11 [CI95,-25 至 4],P=0.15),死亡率分别为 12%和 9%(风险差异-2 [CI95,-14 至 9],P=0.70)。
这项试点研究表明,在高危人群中使用 BIS 或 SE 靶向麻醉深度是可行的,并且处理脑电图监测目标之间有足够的分离。预计会发生术后并发症和死亡率。我们得出结论,一项大型的、多中心的随机对照试验是可行的。