Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33074943›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of anaesthesiology2021

Comparison of adequacy of anaesthesia monitoring with standard clinical practice monitoring during routine general anaesthesia: An international, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

Matthias Gruenewald, Jarkko Harju, Benedikt Preckel, Zsolt Molnár, Arvi Yli-Hankala, Florian Rosskopf, Lena Koers, Agnes Orban, Berthold Bein, AoA Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of anaesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01928875 (Comparison of Adequacy of Anesthesia Monitoring With Standard Clinical Practice During Routine General Anesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT01928875 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Adequacy of Anesthesia Monitoring With Standard Clinical Practice During Routine General Anesthesia

TypeinterventionalSponsorGE HealthcareRan2013Enrolled496ConditionsSurgical Procedure, UnspecifiedArmsAoA Monitoring, Routine (Standard) Anesthesia Monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Continuity with caveats in anesthesia: state and response entropy of the EEG.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Adequacy of Anesthesia Guidance for Colonoscopy Procedures.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Matthias Gruenewald
Jarkko Harju
Benedikt Preckel
Zsolt Molnár
Arvi Yli-Hankala
Florian Rosskopf
Lena Koers
Agnes Orban
Berthold Bein
AoA Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have suggested that monitoring the levels of both hypnosis and antinociception could reduce periods of inadequate anaesthesia. However, the evidence regarding associated benefits of this monitoring is still limited.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to confirm that guidance of anaesthesia by depth of hypnosis and antinociception monitoring decreases the number of inadequate anaesthesia events in comparison with standard clinical practice.

designA multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

settingThe study was conducted in four European University hospitals in four different countries between December 2013 and November 2016. PATIENTS: The study population consisted of a total of 494 adult patients undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation.

interventionsThe patients were allocated to one of two groups. The first group was treated using Entropy for depth of hypnosis and surgical pleth index to determine depth of antinociception (adequacy of anaesthesia group; AoA group). The second group was monitored using standard monitoring alone (control group). Anaesthesia was conducted with target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the study was the number of total unwanted events for example signs of inadequately light or unintentionally deep anaesthesia.

resultsEvidence of inadequate anaesthesia had an incidence of around 0.7 events per patient in both groups with no difference between groups (P = 0.519). In the AoA group, the overall consumption of propofol was significantly reduced (6.9 vs. 7.5 mg kg h, P = 0.008) in comparison with the control group. The consumption of remifentanil was equal in both groups. The times to emergence [8.0 vs. 9.6 min (P = 0.005)] and full recovery in the postanaesthesia care unit (P = 0.043) were significantly shorter in the AoA group. No differences were seen in postoperative pain scores or in the use of analgesics.

conclusionIn the current study, the guidance of total intravenous anaesthesia by Entropy and surgical pleth index in comparison with standard monitoring alone was not able to validate reduction of unwanted anaesthesia events. However, there was a reduction in the use of propofol, and shorter times for emergence and time spent in the postanaesthesia care unit.

trial registrationat ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01928875.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, IntravenousPropofolAdultAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, IntravenousAnesthesia Recovery PeriodHumansReference StandardsAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofol

Identifiers

PMID33074943
PMCPMC7792984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.