M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial

M. Gruenewald, J. Zhou, Nina Schloemerkemper, P. Meybohm, N. Weiler, P. H. Tonner, J. Scholz, B. Bein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Seventy-two patients undergoing routine surgical procedures under propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either standard clinical practice (n = 35) or standard practice plus monitoring of depth of anaesthesia with M-Entropy (n = 37). Patients in the standard practice group received more propofol than the entropy group (mean (SD) 95 (14) vs 81 (22) μg.kg-1.min-1, respectively; p < 0.01), and less remifentanil (0.39 (0.08) vs 0.46 (0.08) μg.kg-1.min -1, respectively; p < 0.001). Loss of consciousness was best predicted by BIS (prediction probability (PK) 0.96) and response entropy (PK 0.93), whereas emergence was best predicted by response entropy (PK 0.94). The frequency of unwanted patient responses was higher in the standard practice group than in the entropy group (47 vs 27 total events, respectively; p < 0.01). Both regimens resulted in fast recovery with no clinical advantage for either one. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, postoperative nausea and vomiting or satisfaction with the procedure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1224-1229
Number of pages6
JournalAnaesthesia
Volume62
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Entropy
Propofol
Anesthesia
Randomized Controlled Trials
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Unconsciousness
Hemodynamics
remifentanil

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia : A randomised controlled trial. / Gruenewald, M.; Zhou, J.; Schloemerkemper, Nina; Meybohm, P.; Weiler, N.; Tonner, P. H.; Scholz, J.; Bein, B.

In: Anaesthesia, Vol. 62, No. 12, 12.2007, p. 1224-1229.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gruenewald, M. ; Zhou, J. ; Schloemerkemper, Nina ; Meybohm, P. ; Weiler, N. ; Tonner, P. H. ; Scholz, J. ; Bein, B. / M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia : A randomised controlled trial. In: Anaesthesia. 2007 ; Vol. 62, No. 12. pp. 1224-1229.
@article{3beeb1ae06cc403e899f953f3f09de9c,
title = "M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Seventy-two patients undergoing routine surgical procedures under propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either standard clinical practice (n = 35) or standard practice plus monitoring of depth of anaesthesia with M-Entropy (n = 37). Patients in the standard practice group received more propofol than the entropy group (mean (SD) 95 (14) vs 81 (22) μg.kg-1.min-1, respectively; p < 0.01), and less remifentanil (0.39 (0.08) vs 0.46 (0.08) μg.kg-1.min -1, respectively; p < 0.001). Loss of consciousness was best predicted by BIS (prediction probability (PK) 0.96) and response entropy (PK 0.93), whereas emergence was best predicted by response entropy (PK 0.94). The frequency of unwanted patient responses was higher in the standard practice group than in the entropy group (47 vs 27 total events, respectively; p < 0.01). Both regimens resulted in fast recovery with no clinical advantage for either one. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, postoperative nausea and vomiting or satisfaction with the procedure.",
author = "M. Gruenewald and J. Zhou and Nina Schloemerkemper and P. Meybohm and N. Weiler and Tonner, {P. H.} and J. Scholz and B. Bein",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05252.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "1224--1229",
journal = "Anaesthesia",
issn = "0003-2409",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia

T2 - A randomised controlled trial

AU - Gruenewald, M.

AU - Zhou, J.

AU - Schloemerkemper, Nina

AU - Meybohm, P.

AU - Weiler, N.

AU - Tonner, P. H.

AU - Scholz, J.

AU - Bein, B.

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - Seventy-two patients undergoing routine surgical procedures under propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either standard clinical practice (n = 35) or standard practice plus monitoring of depth of anaesthesia with M-Entropy (n = 37). Patients in the standard practice group received more propofol than the entropy group (mean (SD) 95 (14) vs 81 (22) μg.kg-1.min-1, respectively; p < 0.01), and less remifentanil (0.39 (0.08) vs 0.46 (0.08) μg.kg-1.min -1, respectively; p < 0.001). Loss of consciousness was best predicted by BIS (prediction probability (PK) 0.96) and response entropy (PK 0.93), whereas emergence was best predicted by response entropy (PK 0.94). The frequency of unwanted patient responses was higher in the standard practice group than in the entropy group (47 vs 27 total events, respectively; p < 0.01). Both regimens resulted in fast recovery with no clinical advantage for either one. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, postoperative nausea and vomiting or satisfaction with the procedure.

AB - Seventy-two patients undergoing routine surgical procedures under propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either standard clinical practice (n = 35) or standard practice plus monitoring of depth of anaesthesia with M-Entropy (n = 37). Patients in the standard practice group received more propofol than the entropy group (mean (SD) 95 (14) vs 81 (22) μg.kg-1.min-1, respectively; p < 0.01), and less remifentanil (0.39 (0.08) vs 0.46 (0.08) μg.kg-1.min -1, respectively; p < 0.001). Loss of consciousness was best predicted by BIS (prediction probability (PK) 0.96) and response entropy (PK 0.93), whereas emergence was best predicted by response entropy (PK 0.94). The frequency of unwanted patient responses was higher in the standard practice group than in the entropy group (47 vs 27 total events, respectively; p < 0.01). Both regimens resulted in fast recovery with no clinical advantage for either one. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, postoperative nausea and vomiting or satisfaction with the procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35848961440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35848961440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05252.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05252.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17991257

AN - SCOPUS:35848961440

VL - 62

SP - 1224

EP - 1229

JO - Anaesthesia

JF - Anaesthesia

SN - 0003-2409

IS - 12

ER -