Impact of age on the reliability of GE Entropy™ module indices for guidance of maintenance of anaesthesia in adult patients: a single-centre retrospective analysis.
Max Ebensperger, Matthias Kreuzer, Stephan Kratzer, Gerhard Schneider, Stefan Schwerin
{"title":"Impact of age on the reliability of GE Entropy™ module indices for guidance of maintenance of anaesthesia in adult patients: a single-centre retrospective analysis.","authors":"Max Ebensperger, Matthias Kreuzer, Stephan Kratzer, Gerhard Schneider, Stefan Schwerin","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.11.050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The GE Entropy™ module uses frontal EEG to compute the processed indices state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and burst suppression ratio (BSR) to guide maintenance of anaesthesia by supposedly minimising overly 'deep' or 'light' anaesthesia. It remains unclear whether the manufacturer-recommended index ranges accurately reflect anaesthesia levels or prevent complications such as burst suppression or arousal reactions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed 15 608 patient records, evaluating 14 770 adult patients (18-90 yr old) undergoing general anaesthesia. Age-dependent effects on processed index values were assessed using linear regression and Spearman's correlation coefficients (rho).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During steady-state anaesthesia (BSR=0), only 38.4% (32.5-42.4%) of SE values were within the recommended range, with most values below the target. Age was positively associated with an increase in age-adjusted minimal alveolar concentration for volatile anaesthetics (adjusted [adj.] R<sup>2</sup>=0.18, P<0.001, rho=0.47 [0.20-0.70]). Despite this, SE paradoxically increased with age (adj. R<sup>2</sup>=0.45, P<0.001, rho=0.67 [0.51-0.79]). This trend persisted even during periods with positive BSR despite supposedly adequate SE values (adj. R<sup>2</sup>=0.73, P<0.001, rho=0.90 [0.80-0.95]). Maintaining anaesthesia within the recommended index range did not prevent positive BSR. Additionally, both frequency (adj. R<sup>2</sup>=0.70, P<0.001, rho=0.92 [0.85-0.95]) and duration (adj. R<sup>2</sup>=0.73, P<0.001, rho=0.89 [0.82-0.93]) of ΔRE-SE≥10, indicating arousal, increased with age.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite their intuitive appeal, the processed EEG index values SE, RE, ΔRE-SE, and BSR showed limited reliability in guiding maintenance of anaesthesia, especially in older patients. Anaesthesiologists should not rely exclusively on the recommended index value range, as it is often unattainable and does not prevent burst suppression or arousal indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.11.050","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The GE Entropy™ module uses frontal EEG to compute the processed indices state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and burst suppression ratio (BSR) to guide maintenance of anaesthesia by supposedly minimising overly 'deep' or 'light' anaesthesia. It remains unclear whether the manufacturer-recommended index ranges accurately reflect anaesthesia levels or prevent complications such as burst suppression or arousal reactions.
Methods: We retrospectively analysed 15 608 patient records, evaluating 14 770 adult patients (18-90 yr old) undergoing general anaesthesia. Age-dependent effects on processed index values were assessed using linear regression and Spearman's correlation coefficients (rho).
Results: During steady-state anaesthesia (BSR=0), only 38.4% (32.5-42.4%) of SE values were within the recommended range, with most values below the target. Age was positively associated with an increase in age-adjusted minimal alveolar concentration for volatile anaesthetics (adjusted [adj.] R2=0.18, P<0.001, rho=0.47 [0.20-0.70]). Despite this, SE paradoxically increased with age (adj. R2=0.45, P<0.001, rho=0.67 [0.51-0.79]). This trend persisted even during periods with positive BSR despite supposedly adequate SE values (adj. R2=0.73, P<0.001, rho=0.90 [0.80-0.95]). Maintaining anaesthesia within the recommended index range did not prevent positive BSR. Additionally, both frequency (adj. R2=0.70, P<0.001, rho=0.92 [0.85-0.95]) and duration (adj. R2=0.73, P<0.001, rho=0.89 [0.82-0.93]) of ΔRE-SE≥10, indicating arousal, increased with age.
Conclusions: Despite their intuitive appeal, the processed EEG index values SE, RE, ΔRE-SE, and BSR showed limited reliability in guiding maintenance of anaesthesia, especially in older patients. Anaesthesiologists should not rely exclusively on the recommended index value range, as it is often unattainable and does not prevent burst suppression or arousal indicators.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.