Spectral Differences of Anesthetic Agents: Addressing Fundamental Problems With New Methods.

Srdjan Z Dragovic,Julian Ostertag,Niklas Baumann,Paul S García,Stephan Kratzer,Gerhard Schneider,Stefan Schwerin,Jamie Sleigh,Matthias Kreuzer
{"title":"Spectral Differences of Anesthetic Agents: Addressing Fundamental Problems With New Methods.","authors":"Srdjan Z Dragovic,Julian Ostertag,Niklas Baumann,Paul S García,Stephan Kratzer,Gerhard Schneider,Stefan Schwerin,Jamie Sleigh,Matthias Kreuzer","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nProcessed electroencephalography parameters are used to guide anesthesia to adequate levels for surgical procedures. Despite known spectral differences between anesthetics, studies often assume similar anesthetic states when titrating to the same target values, presupposing a reductive one-size-fits-all approach for all anesthetic agents. We hypothesize this may introduce bias and aim to characterize the differences using conventional and new approaches.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nFor this retrospective study, we included 108 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia with either fluranes or propofol. We analyzed steady-state frontal electroencephalography during surgery. Conventional approaches were compared with \"fitting oscillations & one-over-f\" and \"variational mode decomposition\" at clinically guided hypnotic and analgesic levels. After comparing the hypnotic drugs at the group level, we used 2 distinct ranges of spectral edge frequency (SEF) for further analyses (8-15 Hz vs 15-21 Hz).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nSevoflurane and desflurane (\"flurane\") demonstrated similar spectral patterns using both conventional methods and \"fitting oscillations & one-over-f\" and \"variational mode decomposition.\" \"Variational mode decomposition\" presented a 1.5 Hz higher central frequency (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUC]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.94, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.8 Hz [10.4-11.6]), compared to the flurane group (9.26 Hz [8.51-9.41]). \"Fitting oscillations & one-over-f\" produced a 2.04 Hz higher center frequency (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.91, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.6 [9.8-11.3]) compared to the flurane group (8.56 [8.02-9.69]). The exponent was 0.26 Hz-1 lower (AUC: 0.76, 95% CI, 0.67-0.85, P < .001) in the propofol group (2.45 Hz-1 [2.45-2.71]) compared to the flurane group (2.71 Hz-1 [2.50-2.93]). At the lower SEF range, \"variational mode decomposition\" presented a 1.5 Hz higher central frequency (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.94, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.4 Hz [9.7-10.9]), compared to the flurane group (8.92 Hz [8.03-9.45]). \"Fitting oscillations & one-over-f\" produced a 1.5 Hz higher center frequency (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.68-0.95, P = .002) in the propofol group (10.3 [10.0-10.8]) compared to the flurane group (8.78 [7.63-9.66]). The exponent was 0.31 Hz-1 lower (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.91, P = .002) in the propofol group (2.57 Hz-1 [2.44-2.70]) compared to the flurane group (2.88 Hz-1 [2.66-3.05]). Similar differences were found in the higher SEF group. However, no significant difference was found in the exponent between the groups.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nDifferences between the electroencephalographic (EEG) spectral patterns under propofol anesthesia compared to anesthesia using fluranes were sensitively captured by 2 recent approaches to EEG analysis. This could potentially lead to establishing agent-specific anesthetic indices.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","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.0000000000007530","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 Processed electroencephalography parameters are used to guide anesthesia to adequate levels for surgical procedures. Despite known spectral differences between anesthetics, studies often assume similar anesthetic states when titrating to the same target values, presupposing a reductive one-size-fits-all approach for all anesthetic agents. We hypothesize this may introduce bias and aim to characterize the differences using conventional and new approaches. METHODS For this retrospective study, we included 108 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia with either fluranes or propofol. We analyzed steady-state frontal electroencephalography during surgery. Conventional approaches were compared with "fitting oscillations & one-over-f" and "variational mode decomposition" at clinically guided hypnotic and analgesic levels. After comparing the hypnotic drugs at the group level, we used 2 distinct ranges of spectral edge frequency (SEF) for further analyses (8-15 Hz vs 15-21 Hz). RESULTS Sevoflurane and desflurane ("flurane") demonstrated similar spectral patterns using both conventional methods and "fitting oscillations & one-over-f" and "variational mode decomposition." "Variational mode decomposition" presented a 1.5 Hz higher central frequency (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUC]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.94, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.8 Hz [10.4-11.6]), compared to the flurane group (9.26 Hz [8.51-9.41]). "Fitting oscillations & one-over-f" produced a 2.04 Hz higher center frequency (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.91, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.6 [9.8-11.3]) compared to the flurane group (8.56 [8.02-9.69]). The exponent was 0.26 Hz-1 lower (AUC: 0.76, 95% CI, 0.67-0.85, P < .001) in the propofol group (2.45 Hz-1 [2.45-2.71]) compared to the flurane group (2.71 Hz-1 [2.50-2.93]). At the lower SEF range, "variational mode decomposition" presented a 1.5 Hz higher central frequency (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.94, P < .001) in the propofol group (10.4 Hz [9.7-10.9]), compared to the flurane group (8.92 Hz [8.03-9.45]). "Fitting oscillations & one-over-f" produced a 1.5 Hz higher center frequency (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.68-0.95, P = .002) in the propofol group (10.3 [10.0-10.8]) compared to the flurane group (8.78 [7.63-9.66]). The exponent was 0.31 Hz-1 lower (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.91, P = .002) in the propofol group (2.57 Hz-1 [2.44-2.70]) compared to the flurane group (2.88 Hz-1 [2.66-3.05]). Similar differences were found in the higher SEF group. However, no significant difference was found in the exponent between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Differences between the electroencephalographic (EEG) spectral patterns under propofol anesthesia compared to anesthesia using fluranes were sensitively captured by 2 recent approaches to EEG analysis. This could potentially lead to establishing agent-specific anesthetic indices.
麻醉药的光谱差异:用新方法解决基本问题。
背景:经过处理的脑电图参数用于指导外科手术麻醉达到适当水平。尽管已知麻醉药之间的光谱差异,但在滴定到相同的目标值时,研究通常假设类似的麻醉状态,假设所有麻醉剂都采用一种简化的一刀切方法。我们假设这可能会引入偏见,并旨在使用传统方法和新方法来表征差异。方法回顾性研究纳入108例在氟醚或异丙酚全麻下手术的患者。我们分析了手术期间的稳态额叶脑电图。在临床指导的催眠和镇痛水平上,将传统方法与“拟合振荡& 1 -over-f”和“变分模式分解”进行比较。在组水平比较催眠药物后,我们使用2个不同的频谱边缘频率(SEF)范围(8-15 Hz和15-21 Hz)进行进一步分析。结果七氟烷和地氟烷(“氟烷”)在常规方法和“拟合振荡& 1 / f”和“变分模态分解”中都表现出相似的光谱模式。“变分模式分解”显示异丙酚组(10.8 Hz[10.4-11.6])比氟醚组(9.26 Hz[8.51-9.41])的中心频率(接受者工作特征下面积[AUC]: 0.88, 95%可信区间[CI], 0.81-0.94, P < .001)高1.5 Hz。与氟醚组(8.56[8.02-9.69])相比,异丙酚组(10.6[9.8-11.3])的“拟合振荡和1 / f”产生的中心频率高2.04 Hz (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.91, P < .001)。异丙酚组(2.45 Hz-1[2.45-2.71])比氟醚组(2.71 Hz-1[2.50-2.93])指数低0.26 Hz-1 (AUC: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.85, P < 0.001)。在较低的SEF范围内,异丙酚组(10.4 Hz[9.7-10.9])的“变分模态分解”中心频率比氟醚组(8.92 Hz[8.03-9.45])高1.5 Hz (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P < 0.001)。与氟醚组(8.78[7.63-9.66])相比,异丙酚组(10.3[10.0-10.8])的“拟合振荡和1 / f”产生了1.5 Hz的高中心频率(AUC: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.68-0.95, P = 0.002)。异丙酚组(2.57 Hz-1[2.44-2.70])比氟醚组(2.88 Hz-1[2.66-3.05])指数低0.31 Hz-1 (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65 ~ 0.91, P = 0.002)。在高SEF组中也发现了类似的差异。但两组间指数差异无统计学意义。结论两种最新的脑电图分析方法能够灵敏地捕捉到异丙酚麻醉与氟醚麻醉的脑电图谱图差异。这可能会导致建立药物特异性麻醉指数。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信