Search

BACKGROUND: Sedation practice, especially when non-anaesthesia personnel are involved, requires efficient anaesthetic depth monitoring. Therefore, we used prediction probability (PK) to evaluate the performance of the bispectral index (BIS) of the EEG and automated responsiveness test (ART) to predict sedation depth and loss of subject's responsiveness during propofol sedation, with and without N2O. METHODS: Twenty volunteers were studied during propofol administration with (N2O) and without (Air) N2O. The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles. After a control period, propofol was infused to a target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg/ml (N2O) or 1.5 microg/ml (Air), which was subsequently increased by 0.25 or 0.5 microg/ml, respectively, until loss of responsiveness was detected by loss of response to command [observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score

BACKGROUND We evaluated a new, integrated, covariate-adjusted, target-controlled infusion system during sedation with propofol combined with 50% nitrous oxide (N2O) and with propofol only (Air). METHODS The protocol consisted of sequential 15-minute cycles in 20 volunteers. After a 15-minute control period, propofol was infused to an initial target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg x ml-1 (N2O) or 1.5 microg x ml-1 (Air). Subsequently, the target effect-site concentration was increased by 0.25 (N2O) or 0.5 microg x ml-1 (Air) for 15 min This sequence was continued until the volunteers lost consciousness as defined by an Observer's Assessment Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score = 2. RESULTS Venous plasma propofol concentrations at the beginning(9 elapsed minutes) and end(15 elapsed minutes) of the pseudo-steady state period differed by only 0.00 +/- 0.16 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.78) during the N2O and 0.00 +/- 0.25 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.91) during the Air trial. OAA/S scores and bispectral index values, as surrogate measures of pharmacodynamic effect, were not different during this time in either trial. The median(25th, 75th percentiles) of the median performance error (%) was -13 (-24, -1) during the N2O and -18 (-26, -9) during the Air trial. The median absolute performance error (%) was 17 (10, 24) in the N2O and 22 (12, 28) in Air trial. The divergence (%/h) was -10 (-26, 4) in the N2O and 14 (-21, 26) in Air trial. The wobble was 7 (5, 10) in the N2O and 6 (4, 8) in the Air trial. CONCLUSIONS When tested with venous blood samples, our TCI system for propofol, using a covariate-adjusted, integrated pharmacokinetic model to target effect-site concentrations, demonstrated a clinically acceptable accuracy and stability during mild to moderate sedation.