Tim Brunson DCH

Welcome to The International Hypnosis Research Institute Web site. Our intention is to provide quality information to clinicians and the general public concerning hypnosis, hypnotherapy, and other mind/body modalities. We intend to expand our coverage to include such topics as Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), energy psychology and medicine, and other related topics. While our intention is to provide quality information derived from valid sources, including peer reviewed literature concerning significant research, this site is not presented as a source of medical or psychological advice. Clinicians wishing to expand their scope of practice or protocols based upon presented information should perform due diligence prior to use. It is our sincere hope to stimulate interest in these topics and to contribute to the evolution of the science of hypnosis. -- Tim Brunson, PhD

Correlation and agreement between bispectral index and state entropy of the electroencephalogram

Bispectral index (BIS) and state entropy (SE) monitor hypnosis. We evaluated the correlation and the agreement between those parameters during propofol anaesthesia and laryngoscopy with and without muscle relaxation. METHODS: A total of 25 patients were anaesthetized with propofol. At steady state (SS: BIS 40-50), they randomly received rocuronium (R) or saline (S); 3 min thereafter, a 20 s laryngoscopy was performed. Correlation (regression analysis) and agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) were evaluated before induction (baseline), at loss of eyelash reflex (LER), at SS and during the first 3 min after laryngoscopy (L). RESULTS: The correlation coefficient r (95% CI), the mean difference (MD) (95% CI), and the limits of agreement [lower-upper limits of 95% CI of MD (sd 1.96)] between BIS and SE were as follows. Overall recordings: 0.87 (0.83 to 0.90), 2.5 (1.2 to 3.0), and [-19.5 to 24.6]; Baseline: 0.45 (0.06 to 0.72), 7.6 (6.0 to 9.2), and [-2.7 to 17.9]; LER: 0.74 (0.47 to 0.88), 8.3 (3.5 to 13.2), and [-22.6 to 39.3]; SS, all patients: 0.41 (0.14 to 0.63), 2.0 (-0.5 to 4.6), and [-19.0 to 23.3]; SS, Group S: 0.36 (-0.07 to 0.68), 1.9 (-2.5 to 6.3), and [-25.0 to 28.8]; SS, Group R: 0.63 (0.32 to 0.82), 0.2 (-2.0 to 2.3), and [-14.0 to 14.4]; L, all patients: 0.49 (0.32 to 0.63), 0.7 (-1.6 to 3.0), and [-25.6 to 27.1]; L, Group S: 0.41 (0.13 to 0.63), 2.3 (-2.4 to 7.1), and [-36.7 to 41.3]; L, Group R: 0.72 (0.56 to 0.83), -0.6 (-2.2 to 1.0), and [-14.3 to 13.1]. The correlation was good except for SS in Group S. The MD was significantly different from 0 for overall recordings, during baseline and LER, but not for the other conditions. The agreement was poor except for baseline, and SS and L in Group R. CONCLUSIONS: BIS and SE are globally well correlated. In contrast, agreement is poor as differences of more than 20 units are frequently observed, except for awake and paralysed patients.

University Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, CHR de la Citadelle Liege, Belgium. vincent.bonhomme@chu.ulg.ac.be

TrackBacks
There are no trackbacks for this entry.

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.hypnosisresearchinstitute.org/trackback.cfm?AF541979-C09F-2A3B-F6F9FAF3630EF666

Comments
© 2000 - 2012The International Hypnosis Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.

Contact