Back

The effect of neuromuscular blockade on EEG-based measures of awareness

Halder, S.; Juel, B. E.; Pope, K. J.; Hardy, A.; Willoughby, J. O.; Storm, J. F.

2025-07-15 anesthesia
10.1101/2025.07.11.25331259
Show abstract

BackgroundBoth basic and clinical consciousness research aims to find objective measures that reliably distinguish conscious from unconscious brain states. Electroencephalogram (EEG) measures are widely used, although they may be contaminated by electrical signals from muscles. MethodsTo assess this source of error, we investigated the impact of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on proposed measures of consciousness (spectral slope, Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZc), connectivity, alpha peak frequency, power in canonical EEG frequency bands) computed from spontaneous high-density EEG recorded from six healthy volunteers in three different conditions: (1) awake-unparalysed, (2) awake-paralysed caused by neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA), and (3) sedated-paralysed (sedated with propofol, paralysed by NMBA, (un)consciousness non-confirmable). ResultsThe markers we investigated distinguished awake-unparalysed states from sedated-paralysed with close to perfect accuracy. Our analysis revealed a serious failure of all measures, except alpha power, to recognise awake-paralysed, without sedation, as an aware state. Errors ranged from 19% of awake-paralysed time segments predicted as unaware (using spectral slope) to 100% (using LZc). Using alpha power, only 1% of all awake-paralysed segments were misclassified. Critically, the awake-paralysed is the state that is important to detect in sedated-paralysed patients, to prevent the experience of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrates that many EEG-based measures fail to recognise awareness in awake-paralysed subjects, by using a unique high-density EEG data set. Alpha power was determined to be the most robust measure to detect AAGA, but this may not generalise to all types of general anaesthetic agents.

Matching journals

1
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Elsevier BV · based on 13 published papers
#1
269× avg
2
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 19%
1.6× avg
3
Journal of Neural Engineering
IOP Publishing · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.6%
31× avg
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 4%
5.6× avg
5
F1000Research
F1000 Research Ltd · based on 28 published papers
Top 0.4%
16× avg
6
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 55%
2.8%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 141 published papers
Top 5%
5.0× avg
8
Medicine
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 29 published papers
Top 2%
8.5× avg
9
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 74 published papers
Top 7%
2.8× avg
10
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers Media SA · based on 99 published papers
Top 12%
2.3× avg
11
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Frontiers Media SA · based on 29 published papers
Top 2%
9.7× avg
12
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Elsevier BV · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.6%
24× avg
13
Clinical Neurophysiology
Elsevier BV · based on 19 published papers
Top 2%
15× avg
14
Brain and Behavior
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 2%
11× avg
15
Brain Sciences
MDPI AG · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.9%
18× avg
16
PLOS Digital Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 88 published papers
Top 10%
1.7× avg
17
Biology Methods and Protocols
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 19 published papers
Top 2%
8.0× avg
18
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 47%
0.9%
19
Journal of Neurotrauma
Mary Ann Liebert Inc · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
11× avg