Effect of auditory evoked potential index monitoring on anesthetic drug requirements and recovery profile after laparoscopic surgery - A clinical utility study

Background: The auditory evoked potential (AEP) monitor provides an electroencephalogram-derived index (AAI) that has been reported to correlate with the central nervous system depressant effects of anesthetic drugs. This clinical utility study was designed to test the hypothesis that AAI-guided administration of the maintenance anesthetics and analgesics would improve their titration and thereby provide a faster recovery from general anesthesia. Methods: Seventy consenting patients undergoing elective general surgery procedures were randomly assigned to either a control (standard clinical practice) or AEP-monitored group. Although the AEP monitor was connected to all patients, the information from the monitor was only made available to the anesthesiologists assigned to patients in the AEP-monitored group. In the AEP-monitored group, the inspired desflurane concentration was titrated to maintain an AAI value of 15-20. In the control group, the inspired desflurane concentration was varied based on standard clinical signs. The AAI values and hemodynamic variables, as well as end-tidal desflurane concentrations, were recorded at 3- to 5-min intervals. The recovery times to achieve a White fast-track score greater than 12 and an Aldrete score of 10, as well as the actual duration of the PACU stay, were evaluated at 5- to 10-min intervals. Patient satisfaction with recovery from anesthesia was assessed using a 100-point verbal rating scale at 24 h after surgery. Results: The average intraoperative AAI value in the AEP-monitored group was significantly higher than in the control group (16 +/- 5 vs. 11 +/- 8, P < 0.05). Use of the AEP monitor reduced the desflurane requirement by 26% compared to the control group (P < 0.01). in addition, the AEP-monitored group received less intraoperative fentanyl (270 +/- 120 vs. 390 +/- 203 mug, P < 0.05) and more rapidly achieved fast-track eligibility (29 +/- 19 vs. 56 +/- 41 min, P < 0.05). The time required to achieve an Aldrete score of 10 (60 +/- 31 vs. 98 +/- 55 min) and the duration of stay in the recovery room (78 +/- 32 vs. 106 +/- 54 min) were also significantly reduced in the AEP-monitored (vs. control) group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Use of AEP monitoring as an adjunct to standard clinical monitors improved titration of anesthetic drugs, thereby facilitating the early recovery process after laparoscopic surgery.