EEG-Based Monitoring of Anesthetic Depth

This document was published more than 2 years ago. The nature of the evidence may have changed.

Summary and Conclusions

SBU’s appraisal of the evidence

EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth is intended to complement traditional monitoring methods during anesthesia. Its primary aim is to adapt anesthesia to individual needs so patients can recover more quickly and be at lower risk for awareness while under anesthesia.

Patients at normal risk of awareness who undergo elective surgery

  • EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth reduces by a few minutes the early phase of recovery after intravenous anesthesia (Evidence Grade 3)*. The time saved has not been shown to have any clinical or economic significance. Whether or not monitoring of anesthetic depth affects the early phase of recovery after inhalational anesthesia cannot be determined (Contradictory Scientific Evidence)*.
  • Regarding the later phase of recovery (eg, time until discharge), scientific evidence on the effects of EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth is contradictory*.
  • Whether or not EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth reduces the risk of awareness during anesthesia cannot be assessed (Insufficient Scientific Evidence)*.
  • Whether or not EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth has any effect on patient satisfaction, or on the incidence of post-anesthesia nausea/vomiting, cannot be determined (Contradictory Scientific Evidence)*.

Patients at high risk of awareness during anesthesia, or who undergo emergency surgery

  • Whether or not EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth in risk patients has a positive effect on post-anesthesia recovery (Insufficient Scientific Evidence)*, or reduces the risk of awareness during anesthesia (Contradictory Scientific Evidence)*, cannot be determined.

In summary, as regards general anesthesia, the scientific evidence is inadequate to support routine use of EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth aimed at reducing the incidence of awareness or decisively improving patient recovery.

Technology and target group

General anesthesia is used in surgery and is usually administered as a combination of hypnotics, analgesic drugs, and, when necessary, muscle relaxants. Traditional monitoring during anesthesia takes into account various physical reactions (eg, circulation, respiration, eye-reaction, and movement) to assess anesthetic depth and control medication. Excessively deep anesthesia can lead to reduced circulation, thereby impairing the function of life-sustaining organs and delaying recovery. Excessively shallow anesthesia can lead to biological stress and awareness while the patient is under anesthesia.

Various technical devices have been developed to assess the depth of anesthesia both objectively and quantitatively. Current technology for monitoring anesthetic depth is based mainly on analyzing signals that reflect changes in the electrical activity of the brain (electroencephalography, EEG). The expectation is that EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth, as a complement to traditional monitoring, will improve the potential to adapt anesthesia to individual patient needs during the course of surgery.

Post-anesthesia recovery can be divided into an early phase and a late phase. In the early phase, patients regain consciousness, start to breathe on their own, and spontaneously open their eyes. Usually the patient can be extubated, removing the endotracheal tube used to secure the airway. There is no generally accepted signal that would indicate when to extubate. It is done based on the anesthesiologist’s experience and on local routines. In the later recovery phase, the patient’s condition is sufficiently stable to discontinue special monitoring. The patient can then leave the post-operative recovery unit. To standardize the assessment of a patient’s condition following anesthesia, rating scales have been developed to measure various parameters, eg, awareness, ability to move, circulation, and respiration.

Discomfort and, in severe cases, post-traumatic stress disorder can be associated with awareness resulting from insufficient anesthetic depth. During elective surgery awareness is estimated to occur in 1 to 2 in 1000 patients at normal risk of awareness. The risk of awareness during anesthesia is higher in certain situations, eg, emergency surgery, caesarian section, heart surgery, trauma, or if the patient has circulatory problems. Here, the risk is attributed to using relatively low drug doses for purposes of maintaining circulation.

The potential target group for the method includes all patients given general anesthesia in conjunction with surgical interventions.

Primary questions

  • Does EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth allow patients to recover more quickly and better after anesthesia?
  • Does EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth reduce the risk of awareness during anesthesia?
  • Is EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth cost-effective?

The patient group studied primarily includes adult patients administered general anesthesia in conjunction with different types of elective surgery. In addition, patients at high risk for awareness during anesthesia, or who receive emergency surgical procedures, are studied separately.

Patient benefit

Patients at normal risk of awareness undergoing elective surgery

EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth has a positive effect on early recovery (time until the eyes open and the patient is extubated) after intravenous anesthesia, but scientific evidence on the use of inhalational anesthesia is contradictory. These outcome measures are, however, of limited relevance from the standpoints of both the patient and the health services since the estimated time saved involves a few minutes. Regarding the later phase of recovery (eg, time until discharge), the scientific evidence is contradictory. The results are based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared anesthesia guided by EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth versus anesthesia guided by traditional monitoring alone.

The studies evaluated were too small to assess whether EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth affects the incidence of awareness during anesthesia.

Scientific evidence is contradictory regarding the effect that EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth has on patient satisfaction and on the incidence of nausea/vomiting after anesthesia.

Patients at high risk for awareness during anesthesia or undergoing emergency surgery

Three randomized controlled trials were identified that compared anesthesia guided by EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth versus anesthesia guided by traditional monitoring alone. Two of the trials studied patient recovery following anesthesia. No differences between the study groups were observed during either the early or late phases.

Whether or not the use of EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth can reduce the incidence of awareness in risk patients while under anesthesia cannot be determined. Findings from two large studies, together including around 4500 patients, are contradictory. A deficiency in both studies concerns the absence of descriptions of those patients in whom awareness could not be fully assessed. The third study was too small to assess the incidence of awareness during anesthesia.

Ethical aspects

If EEG-based monitoring is used, it should only complement traditional anesthesia monitoring and should not be accorded greater importance than traditional monitoring. The risk for misinterpretation, and the resulting consequences (too deep or too shallow anesthesia), must be considered carefully in each individual case.

Economic aspects

Devices for EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth cost between 28 000 and 65 000 Swedish kronor (SEK). In addition, disposable materials, eg, electrodes, cost between SEK 20 and SEK 75 per intervention. It is unclear to what extent the additional costs would be offset by savings generated by the method’s potentially positive effects.

Since the scientific evidence offers no solid conclusions regarding patient benefits from EEG-based monitoring of anesthetic depth, it is not possible to assess the method’s cost-effectiveness.

*Criteria for Evidence Grading SBU’s Conclusions
Evidence Grade 1 – Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two independent studies with high quality, or a good systematic overview.
Evidence Grade 2 – Moderately Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by one study with high quality, and at least two studies with medium quality.
Evidence Grade 3 – Limited Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two studies with medium quality.
Insufficient Scientific Evidence – No conclusions can be drawn when there are not any studies that meet the criteria for quality.
Contradictory Scientific Evidence – No conclusions can be drawn when there are studies with the same quality whose findings contradict each other.

This summary is based on a report prepared by SBU in collaboration with Lennart Christiansson, MD, PhD, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, and Per Gannedahl, MD, PhD, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. It has been reviewed by Gunilla Barr, CRNA, PhD, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and Ola Stenqvist, MD, Professor, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg. Proj­ect manager: Johan Wallin, SBU.

The complete report is available in Swedish.

SBU Alert is a service provided by SBU in collaboration with the Medical Products Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.


  1. Guignard B. Monitoring analgesia. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2006;20(1):161-80.
  2. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995;7(1):89-91.
  3. White PF, Song D. New criteria for fast-tracking after outpatient anesthesia: a comparison with the modified Aldrete’s scoring system. Anesth Analg 1999;88(5):1069-72.
  4. Sandin RH, Enlund G, Samuelsson P, Lennmarken C. Awareness during anaesthesia: a prospective case study. Lancet 2000;355(9205):707-11.
  5. Goldmann L, Shah MV, Hebden MW. Memory of cardiac anaesthesia. Psychological sequelae in cardiac patients of intra-operative suggestion and operating room conversation. Anaesthesia 1987;42(6):596-603.
  6. Myles PS, Leslie K, McNeil J, Forbes A, Chan MT. Bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness during anaesthesia: the B-Aware randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363(9423):1757-63.
  7. Bogetz MS, Katz JA. Recall of surgery for major trauma. Anesthesiology 1984;61(1):6-9.
  8. Jameson LC, Sloan TB. Using EEG to monitor anesthesia drug effects during surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2006;20(6):445-72.
  9. Hälso- och sjukvårdens verksamhet – Statistik om verksamhet inom sjukhusvården (operationer, vårdtillfällen och vårdtid) samt om läkarbesök 2006. Statistik, Hälso- och sjukvård 2007:3. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2007.
  10. Ahmad S, Yilmaz M, Marcus RJ, Glisson S, Kinsella A. Impact of bispectral index monitoring on fast tracking of gynecologic patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Anesthesiology 2003;98(4):849-52.
  11. Aimé I, Verroust N, Masson-Lefoll C, Taylor G, Laloë PA, Liu N et al. Does monitoring bispectral index or spectral entropy reduce sevoflurane use? Anesth Analg 2006;103(6):1469-77.
  12. Basar H, Ozcan S, Buyukkocak U, Akpinar S, Apan A. Effect of bispectral index monitoring on sevoflurane consumption. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003;20(5):396-400.
  13. Boztug N, Bigat Z, Akyuz M, Demir S, Ertok E. Does using the bispectral index (BIS) during craniotomy affect the quality of recovery? J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2006;18(1):1-4.
  14. Bruhn J, Kreuer S, Bischoff P, Kessler P, Schmidt GN, Grzesiak A et al. Bispectral index and A-line AAI index as guidance for desflurane-remifentanil anaesthesia compared with a standard practice group: a multicentre study. Br J Anaesth 2005;94(1):63-9.
  15. Gan TJ, Glass PS, Windsor A, Payne F, Rosow C, Sebel P et al. Bispectral index monitoring allows faster emergence and improved recovery from propofol, alfentanil, and nitrous oxide anesthesia. BIS Utility Study Group. Anesthesiology 1997;87(4):808-15.
  16. Gruenewald M, Zhou J, Schloemerkemper N, Meybohm P, Weiler N, Tonner PH et al. M-Entropy guidance vs standard practice during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia 2007;62(12):1224-9.
  17. Kreuer S, Biedler A, Larsen R, Altmann S, Wilhelm W. Narcotrend monitoring allows faster emergence and a reduction of drug consumption in propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2003;99(1):34-41.
  18. Kreuer S, Bruhn J, Stracke C, Aniset L, Silomon M, Larsen R et al. Narcotrend or bispectral index monitoring during desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia: a comparison with a standard practice protocol. Anesth Analg 2005;101(2):427-34.
  19. Luginbühl M, Wüthrich S, Petersen-Felix S, Zbinden AM, Schnider TW. Different benefit of bispectal index (BIS) in desflurane and propofol anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47(2):165-73.
  20. Mayer J, Boldt J, Schellhaass A, Hiller B, Suttner SW. Bispectral index-guided general anesthesia in combination with thoracic epidural analgesia reduces recovery time in fast-track colon surgery. Anesth Analg 2007;104(5):1145-9.
  21. Määttänen H, Anderson R, Uusijärvi J, Jakobsson J. Auditory evoked potential monitoring with the AAITM-index during spinal surgery: decreased desflurane consumption. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2002;46(7):882-6.
  22. Nelskylä KA, Yli-Hankala AM, Puro PH, Korttila KT. Sevoflurane titration using bispectral index decreases postoperative vomiting in phase II recovery after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 2001;93(5):1165-9.
  23. Recart A, Gasanova I, White PF, Thomas T, Ogunnaike B, Hamza M et al. The effect of cerebral monitoring on recovery after general anesthesia: a comparison of the auditory evoked potential and bispectral index devices with standard clinical practice. Anesth Analg 2003;97(6):1667-74.
  24. Recart A, White PF, Wang A, Gasanova I, Byerly S, Jones SB. Effect of auditory evoked potential index monitoring on anesthetic drug requirements and recovery profile after laparoscopic surgery: a clinical utility study. Anesthesiology 2003;99(4):813-8.
  25. Song D, Joshi GP, White PF. Titration of volatile anesthetics using bispectral index facilitates recovery after ambulatory anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1997;87(4):842-8.
  26. Vakkuri A, Yli-Hankala A, Sandin R, Mustola S, Høymork S, Nyblom S et al. Spectral entropy monitoring is associated with reduced propofol use and faster emergence in propofol-nitrous oxide-alfentanil anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2005;103(2):274-9.
  27. White PF, Ma H, Tang J, Wender RH, Sloninsky A, Kariger R. Does the use of electroencephalographic bispectral index or auditory evoked potential index monitoring facilitate recovery after desflurane anesthesia in the ambulatory setting? Anesthesiology 2004;100(4):811-7.
  28. Wong J, Song D, Blanshard H, Grady D, Chung F. Titration of isoflurane using BIS index improves early recovery of elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries. Can J Anaesth 2002;49(1):13-8.
  29. Zohar E, Luban I, White PF, Ramati E, Shabat S, Fredman B. Bispectral index monitoring does not improve early recovery of geriatric outpatients undergoing brief surgical procedures. Can J Anaesth 2006;53(1):20-5.
  30. Avidan MS, Zhang L, Burnside BA, Finkel KJ, Searleman AC, Selvidge JA et al. Anesthesia awareness and the bispectral index. N Engl J Med 2008;358(11):1097-108.
  31. Leslie K, Myles PS, Forbes A, Chan MT, Short TG, Swallow SK. Recovery from bispectral index-guided anaesthesia in a large randomized controlled trial of patients at high risk of awareness. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005;33(4):443-51.
  32. Puri GD, Murthy SS. Bispectral index monitoring in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003;20(6):451-6.
  33. Liu SS. Effects of Bispectral Index monitoring on ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and a cost analysis. Anesthesiology 2004;101(2):311-5.
  34. Punjasawadwong Y, Boonjeungmonkol N, Phongchiewboon A. Bispectral index for improving anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003843. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003843.pub2.
  35. Ekman A, Lindholm ML, Lennmarken C, Sandin R. Reduction in the incidence of awareness using BIS monitoring. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004;48(1):20-6.
  36. Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, Rampil IJ, Padilla RE, Gan TJ et al. The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. Anesth Analg 2004;99(3):833-9.
  37. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Preventing and managing the impact of anesthesia awareness. Jt Comm Perspect 2004;24(12):10-1.
  38. Bispectral Index Monitor. Health Technology Literature Review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2004.
  39. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. Practice advisory for intraoperative awareness and brain function monitoring: a report by the american society of anesthesiologists task force on intraoperative awareness. Anesthesiology 2006;104(4):847-64.
  40. Mundy L, Merlin T, Parrella A. Bispectral index monitoring (BIS) for measuring the depth of anaesthesia and to facilitate anaesthetic titration. Horizon Scanning Prioritising Summary – Volume 6. Adelaide: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) on behalf of National Horizon Scanning Unit (HealthPACT and MSAC); 2004.
  41. Nielsen JS, Thøgersen B, Ørding H. Søvndybdemonitorering – en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Köpenhamn: Sundhedsstyrelsen, Enhed for medicinsk teknologivurdering; 2007. Medicinsk teknologivurdering 2007;7(2).
  42. Bowdle TA. Depth of anesthesia monitoring. Anesthesiol Clin 2006;24(4):793-822.
  43. Dahaba AA. Different conditions that could result in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state. Anesth Analg 2005;101(3):765-73.
  44. Paventi S, Santevecchi A, Metta E, Annetta MG, Perilli V, Sollazzi L et al. Bispectral index monitoring in sevoflurane and remifentanil anesthesia. Analysis of drugs management and immediate recovery. Minerva Anestesiol 2001;67(6):435-9.
  45. Pavlin DJ, Hong JY, Freund PR, Koerschgen ME, Bower JO, Bowdle TA. The effect of bispectral index monitoring on end-tidal gas concentration and recovery duration after outpatient anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2001;93(3):613-9.
  46. Pavlin JD, Souter KJ, Hong JY, Freund PR, Bowdle TA, Bower JO. Effects of bispectral index monitoring on recovery from surgical anesthesia in 1,580 inpatients from an academic medical center. Anesthesiology 2005;102(3):566-73.
  47. Song D, van Vlymen J, White PF. Is the bispectral index useful in predicting fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol and desflurane? Anesth Analg 1998;87(6):1245-8.
  48. Yli-Hankala A, Vakkuri A, Annila P, Korttila K. EEG bispectral index monitoring in sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia: analysis of direct costs and immediate recovery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999;43(5):545-9.
Download summary

SBU Assessment presents a comprehensive, systematic assessment of available scientific evidence. The certainty of the evidence for each finding is systematically reviewed and graded. Full assessments include economic, social, and ethical impact analyses.

SBU assessments are performed by a team of leading professional practitioners and academics, patient/user representatives and SBU staff. Prior to approval and publication, assessments are reviewed by independent experts, SBU’s Scientific Advisory Committees and Board of Directors.

Published: 5/14/2008
Contact SBU:
Report no: 2008-02
Page published