JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weber, F.
Right arrow Articles by Bein, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weber, F.
Right arrow Articles by Bein, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Equipment
Right arrow Monitoring (Non-cardiac)
Right arrow Pharmacology

Anesth Analg 2005;101:435-439
© 2005 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000158470.34024.EF

TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND SIMULATION

The Impact of Acoustic Stimulation on the AEP Monitor/2 Derived Composite Auditory Evoked Potential Index Under Awake and Anesthetized Conditions

Frank Weber, MD, Markus Zimmermann, MD, and Thomas Bein, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Germany

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Frank Weber, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany. Address e-mail to frank.weber{at}klinik.uni-regensburg.de.

The AEP Monitor/2 features an auditory evoked potential (AEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG)-derived hybrid index of the patient’s hypnotic state. The composite AEP index (AAITM) is preferably calculated from the AEP, but in case of low signal quality it is based entirely on the spontaneous EEG. We investigated the impact of auditory input on the AAI in 16 patients with correctly positioned headphones for acoustic stimulation and headphones disconnected from the patient’s ears under awake and anesthetized conditions. The AAI and the Narcotrend® Index (NI), another EEG-based measure of hypnotic depth, were recorded simultaneously. AAI values under awake and anesthetized conditions were higher with correctly positioned headphones than with headphones disconnected from the patient’s ears (P < 0.05) but remained within the range indicating the patient’s actual hypnotic state as given by the manufacturer of the monitor. Under awake conditions with correctly positioned headphones we observed frequent fluctuations between AEP-derived and EEG-derived AAI, whereas with headphones disconnected from the patient’s ears the AAI calculation was completely EEG based. Acoustic stimulation had no impact on the Narcotrend® Index. Although relevant misinterpretations of the patient’s hypnotic state as a consequence of a turnover from AEP-derived to EEG-derived AAI values should not occur, an improved harmonization of the two methods of indexing would be desirable.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2005 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.