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 (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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sneyd, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sneyd, J. R.

Anesth Analg 2005;100:904-905
© 2005 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000154663.81528.B7


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Bispectral Index and Propofol Induction: Beware of Inappropriate Conclusions

J. Robert Sneyd, MD, FRCA

Peninsula Medical School; University of Plymouth; Plymouth, UK; robert.sneyd{at}pms.ac.uk

To the Editor:

Gurses et al. (1) concluded that bispectral index (BIS) analysis results in an important reduction of propofol requirement and that using BIS analysis may be safer, especially for critically ill elderly patients. However, the patients (28–55 yr, ASA I-II) were neither elderly nor critically ill.

Group I dose: Although scheduled for propofol 2 mg · kg–1 the patients averaging 61.1 kg received propofol 147.4 mg—this equals 2.41 mg · kg–1. Are there errors here? In patients aged 18–50 yr at an infusion rate of 33.3 mg · min–1 the mean induction dose of propofol was 1.36 mg · kg–1 over 145 s (2), thus the Group I dose seems large.

What should be compared with what? Patients titrated to unconsciousness, Group II, required propofol 1.6 mg · kg–1. Thus in Group I, the infusion of 2 (or 2.41?) mg · kg–1would have continued for 1.2 (or possibly 2.43) min after loss of consciousness—clearly an overdose. The BIS monitored Group III should be compared with Group II. Comparisons between Groups I and III are clinically meaningless.

Correct conclusions from the data reported: If we now compare Groups II and III, we can generate statements that accurately reflect the data reported, such as: "When a slow infusion of propofol is titrated to loss of verbal response or to BIS = 50, the time of induction, dose of propofol, bispectral index and hemodynamic changes are similar." Alternatively, we could also state "BIS monitoring does not improve induction of anesthesia if propofol is infused slowly." If we consider the cost, then "The addition of BIS monitoring (cost X dollars) will allow you to stop the propofol infusion 0.6 min earlier and save 11.5 mg of propofol (cost < X dollars), but there will be no benefit in hemodynamics, heart rate, or oxygen saturation." The reader must take his or her pick.

References

  1. Gurses E, Sungurtekin H, Tomatir E, Dogan H. Assessing propofol induction of anesthesia dose using bispectral index analysis. Anesth Analg 2004;98:128–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Peacock JE, Spiers SP, McLauchlan GA, et al. Infusion of propofol to identify smallest effective doses for induction of anaesthesia in young and elderly patients. Br J Anaesth 1992;69:363–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sneyd, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sneyd, J. R.


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