Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28489735›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2017

Impact of a preoperative conversational hypnotic session on propofol consumption using closed-loop anesthetic induction guided by the bispectral index: A randomized controlled trial.

Aurélien Bataille, Sébastien Besset, Barbara Szekely, Mireille Michel-Cherqui, Virginie Dumans, Ngai Liu, Thierry Chazot, Marc Fischler, Morgan Le Guen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Aurélien BatailleDepartment of Anesthesia, Burn and Critical Care, University Hospitals Saint Louis Lariboisière, Paris, France and University Paris Diderot, Paris Department of Anesthesia, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France and University Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, France.
Sébastien Besset
Barbara Szekely
Mireille Michel-Cherqui
Virginie Dumans
Ngai Liu
Thierry Chazot
Marc Fischler
Morgan Le Guen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe automated administration of propofol in a closed loop could be used to objectively evaluate the nonpharmacological anesthetic action of hypnotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a conversational hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anesthetic induction.

designA randomized, usual care-controlled, single-center, patient-blind trial.

settingTertiary care center in France from November 2012 to December 2013.

participantsAdult patients scheduled for a surgical procedure under general anesthesia.

interventionsBefore surgery, patients were randomized with a computer-generated random list for a preoperative conversational hypnosis session or for usual care. The conversational hypnosis session was conducted and individualized by the therapist with an academic degree in hypnosis in a quiet environment. Anesthetic induction was automatically performed by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the bispectral index in a closed loop. OUTCOME: Primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anesthesia induction, defined as a Bispectral index less than 60 for at least 30 seconds.

resultsThe study included 48 patients in the hypnosis group and 49 patients in the control group. No difference in propofol consumption to obtain anesthesia induction was observed between the groups (total dose: 138.6 [67.5] and 130 [47.9] mg, P = .47; adjusted dose: 2.15 [1.09] and 1.95 [0.66] mg/kg, P = .28, for the hypnosis and control groups, respectively). Hetero-evaluation of arm movement during propofol injection (no reaction: 98% and 74%; P = .004, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) and face reaction at venous access placement (no reaction 59% and 30%; P = .017, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) were lower in the hypnosis group. No adverse event was reported.

conclusionsNo difference in propofol consumption was observed in this study designed to evaluate the effect of a hypnotic conversational session on anesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration.

Indexed as

Hypnosis, AnestheticAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthetics, IntravenousAnxietyAutomationConsciousness MonitorsFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain ManagementPreoperative CareAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofol

Identifiers

PMID28489735
PMCPMC5428569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.