Differences between the Surgical Pleth Index and the RE-SE difference as measures of nociception monitoring under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Cuicui Jiao, Xiaoping Chen, Jialin Wang, Lin Jin, Xinzhong Chen, Lihong Sun
{"title":"Differences between the Surgical Pleth Index and the RE-SE difference as measures of nociception monitoring under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.","authors":"Cuicui Jiao, Xiaoping Chen, Jialin Wang, Lin Jin, Xinzhong Chen, Lihong Sun","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5691.25.10885-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To achieve an equilibrium a balance between nociception and antinociception, a suitable depth of anesthesia is essential. The Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) and entropy measurements, which consist of response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE), serve as tools to assess the level of pain perception during surgical procedures. Research has indicated that the SPI is a more dependable instrument than the RE-SE difference for evaluating pain perception under sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the SPI and RE-SE difference in gauging noxious stimuli under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia is still uncertain. The objective of this study is to compare the sensitivity and dependability of the SPI and RE-SE difference in evaluating noxious stimuli during general anesthesia maintained with propofol and remifentanil.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty patients were administered incremental remifentanil effect-site concentrations (CeREMIs) of 0, 2, and 4 ng/mL under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. A standardized noxious stimulus was applied for 30 seconds at each CeREMI level. Data regarding changes in the SPI, RE-SE difference difference, RE, SE, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were collected for each patient both before and during the stimulus. Receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed to assess the predictive ability of these indicators for nociceptive stimuli.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia, the change in the SPI value gradually decreased in accordance with the CeREMI increase under the same intensity of nociceptive stimulation. Compared with the other indicators, the SPI demonstrated greater reliability in assessing noxious stimulation, exhibiting the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the context of this study, the SPI proved to be a superior indicator compared to the RE-SE difference for monitoring nociception during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":29847,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5691.25.10885-X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To achieve an equilibrium a balance between nociception and antinociception, a suitable depth of anesthesia is essential. The Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) and entropy measurements, which consist of response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE), serve as tools to assess the level of pain perception during surgical procedures. Research has indicated that the SPI is a more dependable instrument than the RE-SE difference for evaluating pain perception under sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the SPI and RE-SE difference in gauging noxious stimuli under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia is still uncertain. The objective of this study is to compare the sensitivity and dependability of the SPI and RE-SE difference in evaluating noxious stimuli during general anesthesia maintained with propofol and remifentanil.

Methods: Thirty patients were administered incremental remifentanil effect-site concentrations (CeREMIs) of 0, 2, and 4 ng/mL under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. A standardized noxious stimulus was applied for 30 seconds at each CeREMI level. Data regarding changes in the SPI, RE-SE difference difference, RE, SE, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were collected for each patient both before and during the stimulus. Receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed to assess the predictive ability of these indicators for nociceptive stimuli.

Results: Under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia, the change in the SPI value gradually decreased in accordance with the CeREMI increase under the same intensity of nociceptive stimulation. Compared with the other indicators, the SPI demonstrated greater reliability in assessing noxious stimulation, exhibiting the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusions: In the context of this study, the SPI proved to be a superior indicator compared to the RE-SE difference for monitoring nociception during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia.

异丙酚-瑞芬太尼麻醉下手术体积指数与RE-SE差异作为伤害感觉监测指标的差异。
背景:为了达到伤害感受和抗伤害感受之间的平衡,适当的麻醉深度是必不可少的。手术体积指数(SPI)和熵测量,包括反应熵(RE)和状态熵(SE),作为评估手术过程中疼痛感知水平的工具。研究表明,在七氟醚-瑞芬太尼麻醉下,SPI是一种比RE-SE差更可靠的评估疼痛感觉的工具。然而,在异丙酚-瑞芬太尼麻醉下,SPI和RE-SE差异在测量有害刺激方面的有效性仍不确定。本研究的目的是比较在丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼维持全身麻醉时,SPI和RE-SE在评估有害刺激方面的敏感性和可靠性。方法:30例患者在异丙酚-瑞芬太尼麻醉下,分别给予0、2、4 ng/mL的瑞芬太尼效应位点浓度增量麻醉。在每个mei水平上施加一个标准化的有害刺激30秒。收集每位患者刺激前和刺激过程中SPI、RE-SE差、RE、SE、心率、收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压的变化数据。分析受试者工作特征曲线,以评估这些指标对伤害性刺激的预测能力。结果:在异丙酚-瑞芬太尼麻醉下,相同伤害性刺激强度下,SPI值的变化随mei的增加而逐渐减小。与其他指标相比,SPI在评估有害刺激方面表现出更高的可靠性,具有最高的敏感性和特异性。结论:在本研究的背景下,与RE-SE差异相比,SPI被证明是监测异丙酚-瑞芬太尼麻醉期间伤害感受的优越指标。
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
Minerva Surgery
Minerva Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
320
×
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