Key result
Noxious electrical stimulation during anesthesia increased pupil size by 265% and light reflex amplitude by >200%, making the pupil a more sensitive measure of noxious stimulation than hemodynamics.
Why the study?
Does noxious stimulation cause greater changes in pupillary response compared to hemodynamic variables during isoflurane and propofol anesthesia?
RCT (n=13)
Randomly selected order
Does noxious stimulation cause greater changes in pupillary response compared to hemodynamic variables during isoflurane and propofol anesthesia?
The pupil is a more sensitive measure of noxious stimulation than arterial blood pressure and heart rate during isoflurane and propofol anesthesia.
Pupillary responses may detect noxious stimuli more sensitively than hemodynamics under anesthesia; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
We studied the effects of noxious stimuli on arterial blood pressure, heart rate, pupil size, and the pupillary light reflex in 13 volunteers anesthetized with either isoflurane or propofol. Those given isoflurane (n = 8) were anesthetized twice, in a randomly selected order, once at an end-tidal concentration of 0.8% and once at 1.2%. An intense noxious stimulus was provided by electrical stimulation applied to skin of the abdominal wall (65-70 mA, 100 Hz). Hemodynamic values and pupillary responses were recorded immediately before stimulation and at 15-60-s intervals during 8 subsequent min. In the volunteers given isoflurane (both concentrations), stimulation significantly increased pupil size (265 +/- 44%) and the amplitude of the light reflex (233 +/- 23%). In contrast, mean heart rate and systolic blood pressure increased only 19 +/- 7% and 13 +/- 7% after stimulation. Five additional volunteers were anesthetized twice with propofol (approximately 3 micrograms/mL plasma concentration) and 60% nitrous oxide. The same electrical stimulus was applied, and hemodynamic and pupillary measurements were obtained. During one propofol anesthetic, an esmolol infusion (100 micrograms.kg-1 x min-1) was started 10 min before stimulation to determine whether this agent would blunt the pupillary response. The pupillary light reflex increased more than 200% during both propofol anesthetics with or without esmolol; once again, heart rate and blood pressure changed little. We conclude that with these experimental conditions, the pupil is a more sensitive measure of noxious stimulation than the commonly used variables of arterial blood pressure and heart rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Larson et al. (1993) conducted an RCT in Anesthesia (n=13). Noxious electrical stimulation vs. Pre-stimulation baseline was evaluated on Pupil size and pupillary light reflex. Noxious electrical stimulation during anesthesia increased pupil size by 265% and light reflex amplitude by >200%, making the pupil a more sensitive measure of noxious stimulation than hemodynamics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: