Electroencephalogram Correlates of Delayed Emergence After Remimazolam-Induced Anesthesia Compared to Propofol.

Yeji Lee,Sujung Park,Hyoungkyu Kim,Youngjai Park,UnCheol Lee,Jeongwook Kwon,Bon-Nyeo Koo,Joon-Young Moon
{"title":"Electroencephalogram Correlates of Delayed Emergence After Remimazolam-Induced Anesthesia Compared to Propofol.","authors":"Yeji Lee,Sujung Park,Hyoungkyu Kim,Youngjai Park,UnCheol Lee,Jeongwook Kwon,Bon-Nyeo Koo,Joon-Young Moon","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nDelayed emergence from anesthesia presents clinical challenges, including prolonged stays in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The neurobiological mechanisms underlying delayed emergence, particularly in remimazolam-induced anesthesia, remain poorly understood. This study aimed to explore patterns of brain electrical activity of delayed emergence in remimazolam-induced anesthesia by comparing dynamic changes in electroencephalogram (EEG) activity under various anesthesia states of remimazolam and propofol, focusing on the prefrontal region.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nForty-eight patients (age >18) who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomly received remimazolam- or propofol-induced general anesthesia. Power spectrogram analysis and functional connectivity measures, phase lag entropy (PLE) and phase lag index (PLI), were used to the prefrontal EEG data collected at baseline, unconsciousness, and emergence. Correlation between EEG measures and Patient State Index (PSI) at PACU, as well as time to Aldrete 9, were compared.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nDuring emergence from anesthesia, EEG power revealed that the remimazolam group had higher powers than the propofol group in theta band during eyes-open (EO) (mean of 2.933 [standard deviation of 5.762] vs -2.342 [4.869]; P-value of 0.018 with independent 2-sample t test), and in the alpha band during eyes-closed (EC) (5.821 [7.35] vs -2.399 [4.53]; P < .001) and EO (4.84 [6.411] vs -3.613 [4.556]; P < .001). Conversely, the functional connectivity result showed lower PLE in the alpha band during EC (0.619 [0.0338] vs 0.684 [0.0392]; P < .0001) and EO (0.651 [0.0358] vs 0.692 [0.0428]; P = .015), and in the beta band during EC (0.682 [0.0308] vs 0.712 [0.0236]; P = .016) and EO (0.695 [0.0236] vs 0.725 [0.0195]; P < .001). In line with this, the remimazolam group had lower PSI values at PACU during EC (65.10 [14.67] vs 82.40 [6.678]; P < .0001) and EO (72.35 [12.55] vs 83.53 [6.632]; P = .006) and were slower to reach Aldrete score of 9 (median difference of 17.5; interquartile range of [0.0-21.0]; P < .001). Delayed consciousness recovery (time to Aldrete 9) under remimazolam was significantly correlated with PLE (Pearson's correlation = -.78, P < .0001) and PLI (Pearson's correlation =.69, P = .028) in the alpha band during deep anesthesia.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nDynamic changes in prefrontal EEG during recovery and the correlation analyses show the potential of EEG in reflecting distinct consciousness recovery profiles between 2 drugs-slower recovery under remimazolam anesthesia. This suggests an association of EEG parameters with a unique behavioral profile of remimazolam, especially reflecting progressive changes in cerebral activity during recovery.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Delayed emergence from anesthesia presents clinical challenges, including prolonged stays in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The neurobiological mechanisms underlying delayed emergence, particularly in remimazolam-induced anesthesia, remain poorly understood. This study aimed to explore patterns of brain electrical activity of delayed emergence in remimazolam-induced anesthesia by comparing dynamic changes in electroencephalogram (EEG) activity under various anesthesia states of remimazolam and propofol, focusing on the prefrontal region. METHODS Forty-eight patients (age >18) who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomly received remimazolam- or propofol-induced general anesthesia. Power spectrogram analysis and functional connectivity measures, phase lag entropy (PLE) and phase lag index (PLI), were used to the prefrontal EEG data collected at baseline, unconsciousness, and emergence. Correlation between EEG measures and Patient State Index (PSI) at PACU, as well as time to Aldrete 9, were compared. RESULTS During emergence from anesthesia, EEG power revealed that the remimazolam group had higher powers than the propofol group in theta band during eyes-open (EO) (mean of 2.933 [standard deviation of 5.762] vs -2.342 [4.869]; P-value of 0.018 with independent 2-sample t test), and in the alpha band during eyes-closed (EC) (5.821 [7.35] vs -2.399 [4.53]; P < .001) and EO (4.84 [6.411] vs -3.613 [4.556]; P < .001). Conversely, the functional connectivity result showed lower PLE in the alpha band during EC (0.619 [0.0338] vs 0.684 [0.0392]; P < .0001) and EO (0.651 [0.0358] vs 0.692 [0.0428]; P = .015), and in the beta band during EC (0.682 [0.0308] vs 0.712 [0.0236]; P = .016) and EO (0.695 [0.0236] vs 0.725 [0.0195]; P < .001). In line with this, the remimazolam group had lower PSI values at PACU during EC (65.10 [14.67] vs 82.40 [6.678]; P < .0001) and EO (72.35 [12.55] vs 83.53 [6.632]; P = .006) and were slower to reach Aldrete score of 9 (median difference of 17.5; interquartile range of [0.0-21.0]; P < .001). Delayed consciousness recovery (time to Aldrete 9) under remimazolam was significantly correlated with PLE (Pearson's correlation = -.78, P < .0001) and PLI (Pearson's correlation =.69, P = .028) in the alpha band during deep anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS Dynamic changes in prefrontal EEG during recovery and the correlation analyses show the potential of EEG in reflecting distinct consciousness recovery profiles between 2 drugs-slower recovery under remimazolam anesthesia. This suggests an association of EEG parameters with a unique behavioral profile of remimazolam, especially reflecting progressive changes in cerebral activity during recovery.
与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑诱导麻醉后延迟苏醒的脑电图相关性。
背景:麻醉后延迟苏醒带来了临床挑战,包括在麻醉后护理病房(PACU)的停留时间延长。延迟出现的神经生物学机制,特别是在雷马唑仑诱导的麻醉中,仍然知之甚少。本研究旨在通过比较雷马唑仑和异丙酚不同麻醉状态下脑电图(EEG)活动的动态变化,探讨雷马唑仑诱导麻醉延迟苏醒的脑电活动模式,重点研究前额叶区域。方法48例腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者(年龄0 ~ 18岁)随机接受雷马唑仑或异丙酚诱导全身麻醉。采用功率谱分析和功能连通性测量、相位滞后熵(PLE)和相位滞后指数(PLI)对基线、无意识和出现时收集的前额叶EEG数据进行分析。比较脑电图指标与PACU患者状态指数(PSI)及到达Aldrete 9的时间的相关性。结果麻醉苏醒时,雷马唑仑组睁眼(EO) θ波功率高于异丙酚组(均值2.933[标准差5.762]vs -2.342 [4.869];p值为0.018(独立2样本t检验),闭眼(EC) α带(5.821 [7.35]vs -2.399 [4.53]);P < 0.001)和EO (4.84 [6.411] vs -3.613 [4.556];P < 0.001)。相反,功能连通性结果显示,EC期间α带的PLE较低(0.619 [0.0338]vs 0.684 [0.0392]);P < 0.0001)和EO (0.651 [0.0358] vs 0.692 [0.0428];P = 0.015), EC期间β带(0.682 [0.0308]vs 0.712 [0.0236];P = 0.016)和EO (0.695 [0.0236] vs 0.725 [0.0195];P < 0.001)。与此相一致,雷马唑仑组在EC期间PACU的PSI值较低(65.10 [14.67]vs 82.40 [6.678];P < 0.0001)和EO (72.35 [12.55] vs 83.53 [6.632];P = 0.006),达到Aldrete评分9分的速度较慢(中位差为17.5;四分位数区间为[0.0-21.0];P < 0.001)。雷马唑仑下延迟意识恢复(至Aldrete 9的时间)与PLE显著相关(Pearson相关= -)。78, P < 0.0001)和PLI (Pearson相关= 0.0001)。69, P = 0.028)。结论恢复过程中前额叶脑电图的动态变化及相关分析表明,两种药物麻醉下的脑电图有可能反映不同的意识恢复特征——雷马唑仑麻醉下恢复较慢。这表明脑电图参数与雷马唑仑的独特行为特征有关,特别是反映了恢复期间大脑活动的进行性变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信