How is depth of anaesthesia assessed in experimental pigs? A scoping review

Abstract

Background

Despite the large number of pigs involved in translational studies, no gold standard depth of anaesthesia indicators are available. We undertook a scoping review to investigate and summarize the evidence that sustains or contradicts the use of depth of anaesthesia indicators in this species.

Methods

Medline, Embase and CAB abstract were searched up to September 22^nd 2022. No limits were set for time, language and study type. Only original articles of in vivo studies using pigs or minipigs undergoing general anaesthesia were included. The depth of anaesthesia indicators reported in the selected papers were divided in two categories: A, indicators purposely investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia; B, indicators reported but not investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia.

Results

Out of 13792 papers found, 105 were included after the screening process. Category A: 17 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 19 papers. Studies were conducted using inhalant anaesthetics as the main anaesthetic agent in the majority of the cases (13/19 = 68.4%), while 3/19 (15.8%) used propofol. The most investigated depth of anaesthesia indicators were bispectral index (8/19 = 42.1%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (5/19 = 26.3%). Contrasting results about the specific usefulness of each depth of anaesthesia indicators were reported. Category B: 23 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 92 papers. The most reported depth of anaesthesia indicators were: motor response following a stimulus (37/92 = 40.2%), depth of anaesthesia scores (21/92 = 23.3%), bispectral index (16/92 = 17.8%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (9/92 = 9.8%).

Conclusion

Results highlight the lack of scientifically valid and reliable indicators to ensure adequate depth of anaesthesia in pigs.

Introduction

The porcine model is extensively used in translational medicine due to the anatomical and physiological similarities between humans and pigs [1–4]. The last European Union’s Report on animal research estimated that between 2015 and 2017 around 80000 pigs were used yearly in biomedical research [5]. Despite the large number of animals involved in translational studies, no “gold standard” methodology has been defined to assess anaesthetic depth. The impact of this problem is even more pronounced when neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are administered [6, 7]. This is not only a serious ethical concern, but it raises questions about the reliability of the results obtained from translational studies, especially those assessing perioperative cardiovascular, respiratory and hormonal parameters.

We undertook a scoping review to investigate and synthetize the evidence that sustains or contradicts the use of the depth of anaesthesia (DoA) indicators reported in the literature and adopted in pigs and minipigs undergoing general anaesthesia. In order to reach this goal, the following research question was defined: “Is there scientific evidence of the usefulness of the methodologies commonly employed to assess DoA in pigs?”.

A scoping review was judged appropriate to provide a comprehensive and thorough overview of the available literature in the broad subject of interest.

The aims of the present work were:

* To identify the indicators that have been investigated to assess DoA in pigs;

* To investigate and summarize the evidence that sustains or contradicts the use of DoA indicators reported in the literature and adopted in pigs and minipigs undergoing general anaesthesia;

* To identify knowledge gaps.

Materials and methods

The present scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [8]. A protocol, adapted from the PRISMA-P guidelines [9] was developed a priori (see supplementary data). The search strategies were developed in collaboration with the systematic review services coordinator of the University of Bern.

Stage 1: Identification of DoA indicators

Phase 1: an electronic literature search was performed on January 20^th 2020 by a single investigator (AM) using three databases (PubMed, Embase, CAB abstract) via Ovid, to develop a preliminary list of DoA indicators reported in pigs (material available from the author upon request). No time, language and study type limitations were set. The identified citations were imported into the Mendeley Reference Management Software and duplicates were removed. Title, abstract and keywords were screened to identify DoA indicators. In case it was not clear in which species a certain DoA indicator was used, it was included in the list. Moreover, additional searches were performed via Google Scholar.

Phase 2: an initial list was developed including all the DoA indicators found during phase 1. This list was provided to anaesthetists of the Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, who were asked to check it and add potential missing items.

Phase 3: the developed list was sent world-wide through the veterinary anaesthesia list server (ACVA-List) to veterinary anaesthesia specialists, with the same request. The final list including all DoA indicators collected from phases 1, 2 and 3 was established and used for the next step (Stage 2).

Stage 2: Search strategy

Based on the list settled in Stage 1, a search strategy was developed (see supplementary data). It aimed at identifying papers including pigs undergoing general anaesthesia and where at least one of the previously listed DoA indicators was reported.

The electronic literature search was performed using the same aforementioned databases via Ovid: PubMed, Embase, CAB abstract. The first search was performed on March 19^th 2020, and then updated on September 22^nd 2022. No time, language and study type limitations were set. The identified citations were imported into Mendeley Reference Management Software and duplicates were removed.

Stage 3: Paper selection

Two independent investigators (AM, EGM) screened title and abstract of papers identified through the first search (until March 19^th 2020) and selected those that met all the following four inclusion criteria:

1. reported original research;

2. performed using pigs or minipigs;

3. performed in vivo;

4. involved animals undergoing general anaesthesia.

The investigators periodically met to compare screening results. Differences were discussed and resolved by consensus. In case one of the aforementioned points was not evident when reading title and abstract, the paper was included for further screening.

As the selection identified a large amount of papers, a further inclusion criterion (i.e. that an indicator of DoA must be mentioned in the title or abstract) was added and applied by a single investigator (AM).

For the search update (from March 19^th 2020 to September 22^nd 2022), papers were selected by a single investigator (AM) applying the five inclusion criteria.

Stage 4: Full text screening

The full-text screening was performed by a single investigator (AM). In case of doubt, a second investigator (CS or OL) was asked to screen the text independently, and the final result was obtained upon consensus. During this phase, papers were excluded if:

* the authors did not report any DoA indicator;

* the DoA indicators were not reported for at least two well distinct time points and/or drug combinations and/or drug concentrations and/or physiological conditions and/or surgical interventions;

* unconsciousness was not pharmacologically induced (e.g., electricity, carbon dioxide);

* only a minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) extrapolated from other studies was used to guide anaesthetic administration;

* the paper was found to be a duplicate, or at least one of the five abstract inclusion criteria was not fulfilled;

* only the abstract was available.

From the included papers, DoA indicators were identified and categorized as follows:

* category A: indicators purposely investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia;

* category B: indicators reported but not investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia

Stage 5: Data extraction

Data were tabulated (Microsoft Excel) including the following information: first author’s surname, year of publication, journal, DoA indicator investigated/used. Moreover, for papers reporting category A DoA indicators, further information was retrieved: animals’ weight, age, breed and sex, number of animals included in the study, whether statistical analysis was performed, main anaesthetic drug used, summary of the main results.

Stage 6: Data synthesis

Following categorization of indicators and data extraction, appropriate descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results obtained for each extracted variable.

Results

Stage 1: Identification of DoA indicators

The first literature search identified a total of 14682 papers, reduced to 12720 after duplicate removal. A total of 29 DoA indicators were identified and used to develop the final search strings (see supplementary data).

Stage 2: Search strategy

The first search string identified 12304 papers, reduced to 10346 after duplicate removal.

The update search identified 1488 papers, reduced to 1288 after duplicate removal.

Stage 3: Study selection

Abstract selection of the first search results (until March 19^th 2020) brought to the inclusion of 3600 papers, reduced to 302 once the fifth inclusion criterion was added; abstract selection from the updated search resulted in the inclusion of 32 additional papers. No duplicates were found.

Stage 4: Full-text screening and classification

Of the 334 papers, 229 were excluded (68.6%). Among the 105 remaining papers, 19 included 17 DoA indicators of category A, while 92 papers included 23 DoA indicators of category B (Figs 1 and 2 and Tables 1 and 2).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The sum of the papers containing at least one category A or B DoA indicator exceeds the total number of studies included in the review, since some papers included both category A and category B DoA indicators.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Stage 5 and 6: Data extraction and synthesis

Category A.

All the studies focused on pigs and were published between 1972 and 2022. Animals’ age was reported in 11/19 papers (57.9%); all pigs were younger than 6 months. In the majority of the cases (10/19 = 52.6%), animals of both sexes were included. Overall, a median [interquartile range 25%, interquartile range 75%] of 12 [6, 16] pigs were included in each study. The majority of the investigations were conducted using at least one inhalant anaesthetic as the main anaesthetic agent (13/19 = 68.4%, among which eight used isoflurane); four reported the use of propofol (3/19 = 15.8%) (Table 3).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The most commonly investigated DoA indicator was the bispectral index (BIS) (8/19 = 42.1%) [10–17]. In the majority of the studies reporting its use, inhalational anaesthetics were administered (7/8 = 87.5%). In two papers, no significant differences in BIS values were found among clinically relevant DoA levels [11, 12]. Using similar study designs, opposite results were found in two investigations in pigs undergoing isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane anaesthesia [14, 16], where BIS values significantly decreased at increasing anaesthetic MAC. The authors of the aforementioned studies also found that values of BIS, spectral edge frequency (SEF) 95% and median frequency (MED) were significantly higher during sevoflurane compared to isoflurane anaesthesia [14].

The ability of the BIS to predict motor responses during surgery in animals anaesthetized with ketamine/azaperone was also evaluated and compared to the electrically evoked nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) [10]. With a prediction probability of 0.58 ± 0.04 for BIS and 0.76 ± 0.03 for NFR, the authors concluded that the NFR, but not the BIS, can be used for this purpose. On the contrary, another study found the BIS to have 96% sensitivity and 91% specificity for detecting a positive response following a mechanical stimulation (toe pinch) in isoflurane-anesthetised pigs [13].

Further EEG-based DoA indicators were found in the present review, being SEF (4/17 = 23.5%) [12, 14, 16, 18] and MED (3/40 = 42.9%) [12, 14, 16] among those used the most. In two studies [14, 16], SEF significantly decreased from baseline to 1 MAC, both with isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane, but not at higher concentrations; similar results were found for MED. Both DoA indicators were influenced by the presence of EEG suppression.

Four studies reported the use of raw EEG and spectral power [19–22]. Changes in EEG frequency and amplitude were reported while deepening the anaesthetic plane. Results of these studies also suggest that the EEG signal can be influenced not only by anaesthetic doses, but also by age, investigated brain regions and ventilation strategy (possibly linked to the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide levels).

The appearance of motor reactions following mechanical stimuli (nociceptive and non-nociceptive) was investigated as DoA indicator in 3/19 studies (15.8%), all using inhalant anaesthetics [24–26]. Different responses, depending on the stimulus applied, were observed. In particular, MAC values assessed by dew clamp were 19 and 21% higher compared to those obtained by tail clamp, when isoflurane or I-653 were used, respectively [24]. Moreover, no constant pattern of reaction appearance/disappearance following eyelashes brush, corneal brush, nasal septum pinch, interdigital fold pinch, periople pinch, tail and claw clamp was found at decreasing isoflurane concentrations [25]. In a recent study, the reaction to claw clamp did not have a uniform pattern among animals when different drugs, at increasing doses, were administered in isoflurane anaesthetized pigs [26].

Electrical nociceptive stimuli were also applied in isoflurane anaesthetized pigs to evoke a nociceptive withdrawal reflex (NWR). Reflex amplitude decreased with increasing isoflurane concentrations, and reflexes evoked by single stimuli were suppressed at lower concentrations than those evoked by repeated stimuli, showing that temporal summation still occurs around MAC levels [23]. In a recent study, the NWR was shown to be influenced in a nonuniform manner by different drugs administered at increasing doses, and to give dissimilar results when compared to response to claw clamp [26].

Category B.

All the studies focused on pigs and were published between 1980 and 2022.

The most reported DoA indicator was the appearance of a motor response following a stimulus (37/92 = 40.2%), that was nociceptive in 34/92 cases (37%). It was followed by DoA scores (21/92 = 22.8%), BIS (16/92 = 17.4%) and SEF 95% (9/81 = 9.8%).

Within the papers reporting DoA scores, 23 items were used to construct them, among which the most represented were: palpebral reflex (12/23 = 52.2%), reaction to painful stimuli (11/23 = 47.8%), body position/posture (11/23 = 47.8%), jaw tone (10/23 = 43.5%) and spontaneous movements (8/23 = 34.8%).

Discussion

The present scoping review highlights the lack of scientifically valid methods to ensure an adequate DoA in pigs undergoing general anaesthesia. Only few investigations have been performed for this purpose. Moreover, heterogeneous and contrasting results about the usefulness of the DoA indicators used has been found, making difficult to draw final conclusions. Furthermore, inhalant anaesthetics have been mainly administered, and almost no information is present regarding DoA assessment during total intravenous anaesthesia.

Accidental awareness is one of the main consequences of an inadequate DoA. In humans, its incidence has been reduced from 1–2% in the 1980s to around 0.1% nowadays [7, 115, 116]. It has been previously highlighted that accidental awareness is likely to be prevalent in pigs undergoing experimental studies, mainly caused by inadequate monitoring and poorly trained staff [6]. This is in line with our results showing that, currently, no valid monitoring strategies are available, leading to an increased risk of accidental awareness. Such a lack, on one side impedes the development of DoA assessment guidelines, on the other side represents a great ethical issue of which the scientific community should be aware.

Consciousness vanishes when anaesthetics produce loss of cortical connectivity and block the brain’s ability to integrate information. Following this principle, in the last two decades, many investigations have been conducted to assess brain activity as DoA indicator. The modification of EEG amplitude and frequency over time reflects drugs action on brain circuits, until total suppression of the EEG signal is reached. Being the EEG real-time visual interpretation difficult, algorithms have been developed and included in EEG-based monitors, in order to provide the anaesthetists with easy-to-follow DoA indexes. In the last decades, many have been integrated in medical devices. Among them, only Index of Consciousness (IoC), Patient State Index (PSI) and BIS have been evaluated as DoA indicators in pigs. For IoC [27] and PSI [19], only single reports could be found; both indexes seemed to mirror the clinical judgement in animals either receiving a single propofol bolus or undergoing an isoflurane-based balanced anaesthesia, respectively. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results. On the other side, the BIS has been assessed in eight studies (seven of which using inhalants) and contrasting results were reported. Greene and colleagues [11] and Haga and colleagues [12] found that, at increasing doses of isoflurane, the BIS remained stable, not providing any help in differentiating anaesthetic levels. These results are in contrast with those of Martín-Cancho and colleagues that showed how BIS could reflect increasing concentrations of isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane [14, 16]. Schmidt and colleagues [17] reported similar BIS values while halothane, xenon or pentobarbital were administered, but various levels of DoA were not compared. Jaber and colleagues [13] reported that BIS can possibly be used to predict movements in response to noxious stimulation, in contrast with the results found by Baars and colleagues [10]. If the BIS has been developed to linearly follow an increasing DoA or rather to provide a range of values corresponding to an adequate DoA is not known. Indeed, the algorithm through which the EEG signal is processed is proprietary, and conclusions are difficult to be drawn.

It is also important to highlight that BIS, IoC and PSI have been developed based on data collected from humans, and a mere translation of their application in pigs could lead to misleading results. Species-specific anatomical peculiarities should be considered [19]. Furthermore, age, drugs used, clinical status, among others, have also been demonstrated to influence the EEG signal, in both humans and pigs [21, 22, 117, 118] but are often not taken in consideration by the EEG-based DoA monitors developed so far. Further studies should be conducted to assess the validity of the BIS and other indexes in assessing DoA in pigs, using various anaesthetic regimens.

Other features extrapolated from the EEG have been applied to assess DoA in this species. Among them, SEF 95% and MED have been mostly reported. They represent the frequency below which 95% and 50% of the EEG total power is located, respectively. Both parameters were found not capable to correctly predict DoA in pigs. Moreover, they were largely influenced by the type of anaesthetic used, as well as by the presence of EEG suppression, similarly to what reported in humans [119–121]. Also in this case, no studies using total intravenous anaesthesia have been performed. Further investigations should be carried out before drawing final conclusions.

The use of EEG suppression to reach an adequate DoA has also been reported in pigs, but never thoroughly investigated. The suppression ratio represents the percentage of EEG activity that does not exceed a user-specified amplitude threshold (usually ± 5 μV) over a certain time span (usually 60–63 seconds) [122, 123]. No specific end-points have been established in pigs, but thresholds values of 20% or above has been targeted to reach deep anaesthesia. Recent studies in humans [123, 124] found the intraoperative presence of EEG suppression to be an independent risk factor for postoperative delirium. Despite no strong causative effect has been proved, and no information is available on the influence that EEG suppression might have on recovery outcomes in veterinary species, care should be taken in titrating drug administration only based on EEG suppression levels. Moreover, as previously mentioned, caution should be used in quantifying EEG suppression via DoA monitors whose algorithms have been created for humans.

Despite the mechanism of action of general anaesthetics has not been fully understood, their action is observed both at cortical and subcortical levels [125–127]. While the consciousness is mainly based on cortical neuronal networks, nociception and related motor responses are rather processed at subcortical levels [128–132].

Assessing whether a nociceptive stimulus is able to evoke a reaction or not was found to be the method mostly used to evaluate DoA in pigs. On responsiveness to stimulation is based the concept of MAC, namely the minimum alveolar concentration of anaesthetic at 1 atmosphere, which produces immobility in 50% of subjects exposed to a noxious stimulus [133]. It has often been used as a guide for inhalant drugs administration in many animal species. However, if consciousness is a state in which an individual is able to process information from his surroundings [134], MAC seems to be mainly related to spinal cord excitability rather than to consciousness [128–132]. This is in line with studies in humans, finding patient’s responsiveness and consciousness to be not always related to each other [135, 136]. Thus, the use of MAC as sole method to assess DoA should be avoided or at least its limitations clearly recognised.

The electrical NWR has also been investigated as DoA indicator. Even if this methodology has been principally applied to assess antinociception, studies support its possible use as adjunct in the DoA assessment [10, 23]. Further investigations should be carried out to establish the most appropriate recording paradigms in this species, and to evaluate the effect that different drugs have on it.

Depth of anaesthesia scores have been widely used in the literature in pigs. However, none has been validated, and the scoring has been often based on the investigator subjective judgment. Despite being easy to apply, care should be taken when assessing DoA using scores which have not undergone a validation process.

Great effort has been put in the last years for the development, diffusion and promotion of the 3Rs principle [137–139]. One of its three cardinal points is the “refinement”, namely the minimisation of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that may be experienced by research animals. In spite of that, only two studies have been performed to investigate DoA indicators in pigs in the last seven years.

All the pigs included in the selected papers were younger than 6 months of age. Even if juvenile animals are commonly employed in experimental settings due to the ease of handling, no information is currently available on any DoA indicator in adult and geriatric pigs. Care should be taken while translating the information currently available on DoA assessment to animals of different ages.

No information has been found in minipigs, despite their increasing use in different branches of translational medicine [140–143]. Further specific studies should be performed characterizing the effects induced by anaesthetic drugs in these animals, also considering that most of them are used as adult.

Considering the nature of our research question, a scoping review was deemed the most appropriate design. Due to the heterogeneity in the included studies, no risk of bias assessment was performed. Our results can be the basis for future focused systematic reviews, aiming at answering narrower and more specific questions and analysing the quality of individual studies.

Our scoping review has some limitations. First, due to limited personnel availability, not all the screening steps were performed by two persons. Despite the guidelines do not establish a minimum number of investigators [8], the involvement of more than one independent reviewer during the whole process would have guaranteed a higher level of reproducibility. Second, despite following a rigorous methodology, it is possible that relevant studies were missed during abstract selection if neither the title nor the abstract mentioned any DoA indicator.

Conclusion

No appropriate DoA indicator is currently available for pigs and minipigs, and welfare during anaesthesia cannot be fully ensured. Validation studies should be performed on already available and new DoA indicators, in order to provide valid and reliable tools to the scientific community, to be applied in experimental settings, especially during invasive procedures.

Supporting information

S1 File. Scoping review protocol.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511.s001

(DOCX)

S2 File. Search strings developed for the literature research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511.s002

(DOC)

S3 File. Abstract screening process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511.s003

(XLSX)

S4 File. Full-text data extraction tables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511.s004

(XLSX)

S5 File. PRISMA-ScR checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511.s005

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Heidrun Janka, the anaesthetists of the Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section of the Vetsuisse Faculty-University of Bern, and the ACVA-List members who replied to our email, for the support given in the search strategy development. The authors thank Shannon Axiak Flammer for her contribution in improving the manuscript.

Citation: Mirra A, Gamez Maidanskaia E, Carmo LP, Levionnois O, Spadavecchia C (2023) How is depth of anaesthesia assessed in experimental pigs? A scoping review. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0283511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283511

About the Authors:

Alessandro Mirra

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations: Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, Graduate School for Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5036-7500

Ekaterina Gamez Maidanskaia

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Luís Pedro Carmo

Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Clinical Research und Public Health (DCR-VPH), Vetsuisse Faculty, Veterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Ås, Norway

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7367-5178

Olivier Levionnois

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ OL and CS are joint senior authors on this work.

Affiliation: Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Claudia Spadavecchia

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ OL and CS are joint senior authors on this work.

Affiliation: Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

References

1. Komiya K, Sato Y, Wainai T, Murayama T, Yamada M, Hiruta A, et al. Evaluation of intraoperative infusion solution using a complete anhepatic model in baby pigs. Transplant Proc. 2005;37: 2341–2346. pmid:15964412

2. Bassols A, Costa C, Eckersall PD, Osada J, Sabrià J, Tibau J. The pig as an animal model for human pathologies: A proteomics perspective. Proteomics—Clin Appl. 2014;8: 715–731. pmid:25092613

3. Dawson HD, Chen C, Gaynor B, Shao J, Urban JF. The porcine translational research database: A manually curated, genomics and proteomics-based research resource. BMC Genomics. 2017;18. pmid:28830355

4. Nichols JE, La Francesca S, Niles JA, Vega SP, Argueta LB, Frank L, et al. Production and transplantation of bioengineered lung into a large-animal model. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10. pmid:30068570

5. Commission European. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 2019: report on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union in 2015–2017. Brussel Eur Comm. 2020;20: pp.

6. Bradbury AG, Clutton RE. Are neuromuscular blocking agents being misused in laboratory pigs? Br J Anaesth. 2016;116: 476–485. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed17&AN=610034895 pmid:26934943

7. Pandit JJ, Andrade J, Bogod DG, Hitchman JM, Jonker WR, Lucas N, et al. 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: Summary of main findings and risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113: 549–559. pmid:25204697

8. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169: 467–473. pmid:30178033

9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Humana y Diet. 2016;20: 148–160. pmid:25554246

10. Baars JH, Rintisch U, Rehberg B, Lahrmann KH, Dincklage F von. Prediction of motor responses to surgical stimuli during bilateral orchiectomy of pigs using nociceptive flexion reflexes and the bispectral index derived from the electroencephalogram. Vet J. 2013;195: 377–381. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20133159858 pmid:22980445

11. Greene SA, Benson GJ, Tranquilli WJ, Grimm KA. Effect of isoflurane, atracurium, fentanyl, and noxious stimulation on bispectral index in pigs. Comp Med. 2004;54: 397–403. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20043158418 pmid:15357320

12. Haga HA, Tevik A, Moerch H. Bispectral index as an indicator of anaesthetic depth during isoflurane anaesthesia in the pig. J Vet Anaesth. 1999;26: 3–7. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20002206990

13. Jaber SM, Sullivan S, Hankenson FC, Kilbaugh TJ, Margulies SS. Comparison of heart rate and blood pressure with toe pinch and bispectral index for monitoring the depth of anesthesia in piglets. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015;54: 536–544. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20153348653 pmid:26424252

14. Martín-Cancho MF, Lima JR, Luis L, Crisostomo V, Ezquerra LJ, Carrasco MS, et al. Bispectral index, spectral edge frequency 95%, and median frequency recorded for various concentrations of isoflurane and sevoflurane in pigs. Am J Vet Res. 2003;64: 866–873. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20033135383 pmid:12856771

15. Martín-Cancho MF, Carrasco-Jimenez MS, Lima JR, Ezquerra LJ, Crisostomo V, Uson-Gargallo J. Assessment of the relationship of bispectral index values, haemodynamic changes, and recovery times associated with sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia in pigs. Am J Vet Res. 2004;65: 409–416. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20043061632

16. Martín-Cancho MF, Lima JR, Luis L, Crisostomo V, Lopez MA, Ezquerra LJ, et al. Bispectral index, spectral edge frequency 95% and median frequency recorded at varying desflurane concentrations in pigs. Res Vet Sci. 2006;81: 373–381. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20063193355 pmid:16516255

17. Schmidt M, Papp-Jambor C, Marx T, Schirmer U, Reinelt H. Evaluation of bispectral index (BIS) for anaesthetic depth monitoring in pigs. Appl Cardiopulm Pathophysiol. 2000;9: 83–86. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed7&AN=30696120

18. Martoft L, Jensen EW, Rodriguez BE, Jorgensen PF, Forslid A, Pedersen HD. Middle-latency auditory evoked potentials during induction of thiopentone anaesthesia in pigs. Lab Anim. 2001;35: 353–363. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20013139262 pmid:11669320

19. Mirra A., Casoni D., Barge P., Hight D., Levionnois O. SC. Usability of the SedLine ® electroencephalographic monitor of depth of anaesthesia in pigs : a pilot study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022. pmid:35059913

20. Frasch MG, Walter B, Friedrich H, Hoyer D, Eiselt M, Bauer R. Detecting the signature of reticulothalamocortical communication in cerebrocortical electrical activity. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118: 1969–1979. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=47187762 pmid:17604691

21. Rose M, Hicks RG, Lethlean AK, Ham JM. Electroencephalographic patterns in the awake and anesthetized pig. Am J Vet Res. 1972;33: 437–443. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med1&AN=5059876 pmid:5059876

22. Schneider J, Bocklisch H. Application to barbiturate anaesthesia to swine—use of electroencephalography to measure depth and duration of anaesthesia. [German]. Monatsh Veterinarmed. 1980;35: 681–685. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed3&AN=11247718

23. Spadavecchia C, Haga HA, Ranheim B. Concentration-dependent isoflurane effects on withdrawal reflexes in pigs and the role of the stimulation paradigm. Vet J. 2012;194: 375–379. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed13&AN=52029796 pmid:22634182

24. Eger 2nd EI, Johnson BH, Weiskopf RB, Holmes MA, Yasuda N, Targ A, et al. Minimum alveolar concentration of I-653 and isoflurane in pigs: definition of a supramaximal stimulus. Anesth Analg. 1988;67: 1174–1176. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med3&AN=3195734 pmid:3195734

25. Haga HA, Tevik A, Moerch H. Motor responses to stimulation during isoflurane anaesthesia in pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2002;29: 69–75. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20023073247 pmid:28404302

26. Haga HA, Lervik A, Nordgreen J. Inhibition and facilitation of nociceptively evoked muscular activity by fentanyl or dexmedetomidine in isoflurane-anaesthetized pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2021;48: 230–238. pmid:33526309

27. Llonch P, Andaluz A, Rodriguez P, Dalmau A, Jensen EW, Manteca X, et al. Assessment of consciousness during propofol anaesthesia in pigs. Vet Rec. 2011;169: 496. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20113361874 pmid:21949060

28. Haga HA, Ranheim B, Spadavecchia C. Effects of isoflurane upon minimum alveolar concentration and cerebral cortex depression in pigs and goats: An interspecies comparison. Vet J. 2011;187: 217–220. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed12&AN=50750495 pmid:20045357

29. Allaouchiche B, Duflo F, Tournadre JP, Debon R, Chassard D. Influence of sepsis on sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration in a porcine model. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86: 832–836. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed7&AN=32514898 pmid:11573592

30. Kurita T, Takata K, Morita K, Sato S. Lipophilic beta-adrenoceptor antagonist propranolol increases the hypnotic and anti-nociceptive effects of isoflurane in a swine model. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100: 841–845. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=351780173 pmid:18424803

31. Kurita T, Takata K, Uraoka M, Morita K, Sanjo Y, Katoh T, et al. The influence of hemorrhagic shock on the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of isoflurane in a swine model. Anesth Analg. 2007;105: 1639–1643. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=350190557 pmid:18042861

32. Kurita T, Takata K, Uraoka M, Morita K, Sato S. Landiolol, an ultra-short-acting beta1-adrenoceptor antagonist, does not alter the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of isoflurane in a swine model. Anesth Analg. 2007;105: 656–660. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=47300839 pmid:17717219

33. Lerman J, Oyston JP, Gallagher TM, Miyasaka K, Volgyesi GA, Burrows FA. The minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) and hemodynamic effects of halothane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane in newborn swine. Anesthesiology. 1990;73: 717–721. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed4&AN=20314772 pmid:2221440

34. Lundeen G, Manohar M, Parks C. Systemic distribution of blood flow in swine while awake and during 1.0 and 1.5 MAC isoflurane anesthesia with or without 50% nitrous oxide. Anesth Analg. 1983;62: 499–512. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed3&AN=13137128 pmid:6837962

35. Malavasi LM, Jensen-Waern M, Augustsson H, Nyman G. Changes in minimal alveolar concentration of isoflurane following treatment with medetomidine and tiletamine/zolazepam, epidural morphine or systemic buprenorphine in pigs. Lab Anim. 2008;42: 62–70. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20083065236 pmid:18348767

36. Moeser AJ, Blikslager AT, Swanson C. Determination of minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane in juvenile swine. Res Vet Sci. 2008;84: 283–285. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=350227051 pmid:17570452

37. Moon PF, Scarlett JM, Ludders JW, Conway TA, Lamb S V. Effect of fentanyl on the minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane in swine. Anesthesiology. 1995;83: 535–542. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed5&AN=25272930 pmid:7661354

38. Oshiro AH, Otsuki DA, Hamaji MW, Rosa KT, Ida KK, Fantoni DT, et al. Pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation under different inhaled concentrations of isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane in pigs undergoing hemorrhage. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015;70: 804–809. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed16&AN=616009587 pmid:26735220

39. Otsuki DA, Fantoni DT, Holms C, Auler JO Jr. Minimum alveolar concentrations and hemodynamic effects of two different preparations of sevoflurane in pigs. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010;65: 531–537. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med8&AN=20535372 pmid:20535372

40. Allaouchiche B, Dufo F, Debon R, Tournadre JP, Chassard D. Influence of sepsis on minimum alveolar concentration of desflurane in a porcine model. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87: 280–283. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed7&AN=32750539 pmid:11493502

41. Rana MDS, Rahman MDM, Juyena NS. Anaesthetic responses and reflexes to propofol and its combination in swine. Indian J Anim Sci. 2018;88: 1133–1137. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20183353028

42. Ratajczak K. Droperidol/domitor combination in preanaesthesia in pigs. Arch Vet Pol. 1996;36. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba4&AN=19992200986

43. Re M, Canfran S, Largo C, Gomez de Segura IA. Effect of lidocaine-ketamine infusions combined with morphine or fentanyl in sevoflurane-anesthetized pigs. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2016;55: 317–320. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20163164609 pmid:27177566

44. Satas S, Haaland K, Thoresen M, Steen PA. MAC for halothane and isoflurane during normothermia and hypothermia in the newborn piglet. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996;40: 452–456. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed6&AN=26151557 pmid:8738690

45. Schieber RA, Namnoum A, Sugden A. Hemodynamic effects of isoflurane in the newborn piglet: Comparison with halothane. Anesth Analg. 1986;65: 633–638. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed3&AN=16080709 pmid:3706801

46. Steffey EP, Baggot JD, Eisele JH, Willits N, Woliner MJ, Jarvis KA, et al. Morphine-isoflurane interaction in dogs, swine and rhesus monkeys. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1994;17: 202–210. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med3&AN=7933058 pmid:7933058

47. Li W, Zhong Z, Gu W, Li G, Tang T, Wu D, et al. Anesthesia effect on pregnant pigs with combining dexmedetomedine hydrochloride with Zoletil. Chinese J Vet Sci. 2015;35: 1324–1328. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20163006486

48. Yu CL, Liu ZX, Tang Q, Ma L, Cai LP, Xu C, et al. Observation of anesthetic effect in abdominal zipper model with miniature pigs. [Chinese]. Acad J Second Mil Med Univ. 2012;33: 224–229. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed13&AN=373965947

49. Liu X, Dingley J, Elstad M, Scull-Brown E, Steen PA, Thoresen M. Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for sevoflurane and xenon at normothermia and hypothermia in newborn pigs. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57: 646–653. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed14&AN=52396309 pmid:23316707

50. Musser JB, Fontana JL, Mongan PD. The anesthetic and physiologic effects of an intravenous administration of a halothane lipid emulsion (5% vol/vol). Anesth Analg. 1999;88: 671–675. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed6&AN=29109041 pmid:10072026

51. Eisele PH, Talken L, Eisele Jr. JH. Potency of isoflurane and nitrous oxide in conventional swine. Lab Anim Sci. 1985;35: 76–78. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med2&AN=3981962

52. Kurita T, Takata K, Morita K, Morishima Y, Uraoka M, Katoh T, et al. The influence of hemorrhagic shock on the electroencephalographic and immobilizing effects of propofol in a swine model. Anesth Analg. 2009;109: 398–404. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed11&AN=355551086 pmid:19608809

53. Härtel H, Gumbert S, Rauh A, Beisl M, Schulz J, Kempf K, et al. Investigations on suckling piglets castrated under automated isoflurane anesthesia. Tierarztl Prax Ausgabe G Grosstiere—Nutztiere. 2021;49: 167–177. pmid:34157746

54. Hagmüller W, Schwediauer P. Verbesserte Schmerzausschaltung durch Butorphanol bei Injektionsanästhesie mit Ketamin und Azaperon bei der Kastration männlicher Ferkel. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2020;133.

55. Rüdebusch J, Kästner S, Waldmann KH, Wendt M, von Altrock A. Investigation into the optimization of automated isoflurane anesthesia for the performance of safe, painless castration of male suckling pigs. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2022;135: 1–13.

56. Rydén A, Jensen-Waern M, Nyman G, Olsén L. Physiological and clinical responses in pigs in relation to plasma concentrations during anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, tiletamine, zolazepam, and butorphanol. Animals. 2021;11: 1–14. pmid:34063808

57. Ryden A, Fisichella S, Perchiazzi G, Nyman G. Comparison of two injectable anaesthetic techniques on induction and subsequent anaesthesia in pigs. Lab Anim. 2021;55: 540–550. pmid:34325556

58. Preiswerk A, Henzen A, Torgerson P. Kritische Evaluation der in der Schweiz zur Verfügung stehenden Inhalations ­ anästhesiegeräte zur Ferkelkastration unter Isoflurananästhesie im Stall. 2022; 165–175.

59. Ekstrand C, Sterning M, Bohman L, Edner A. Lumbo-sacral epidural anaesthesia as a complement to dissociative anaesthesia during scrotal herniorrhaphy of livestock pigs in the field. Acta Vet Scand. 2015;57. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20153260747 pmid:26104188

60. Hecker KE, Baumert JH, Horn N, Reyle-Hahn M, Heussen N, Rossaint R. Minimum Anesthetic Concentration of Sevoflurane with Different Xenon Concentrations in Swine. Anesth Analg. 2003;97: 1364–1369. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=37310135 pmid:14570653

61. Hecker KE, Reyle-Hahn M, Baumert JH, Horn N, Heussen N, Rossaint R. Minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of isoflurane with different xenon concentrations in swine. Anesth Analg. 2003;96: 119–124. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=36042044 pmid:12505936

62. Hecker KE, Horn N, Baumert JH, Reyle-Hahn SM, Heussen N, Rossaint R. Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of xenon in intubated swine. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92: 421–424. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=38263515 pmid:14742330

63. Holmstrom A, Akeson J. Cerebral blood flow at 0.5 and 1.0 minimal alveolar concentrations of desflurane or sevoflurane compared with isoflurane in normoventilated pigs. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2003;15: 90–97. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=36396520 pmid:12657993

64. Kurita T, Takata K, Morita K, Uraoka M, Sato S. The influence of endotoxemia on the electroencephalographic and antinociceptive effects of isoflurane in a swine model. Anesth Analg. 2010;110: 83–88. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed11&AN=358177300 pmid:19897800

65. Jee H, Lee J, Jeong S, Lee S, Park C, Kim M. Comparative study of two anesthetic combinations (zoletil/midazolam and zoletil/xylazine) in pigs. J Vet Clin. 2010;27: 330–335. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20103330452

66. Lee JY, Kim MC. Anesthesia of growing pigs with tiletamine-zolazepam and reversal with flumazenil. J Vet Med Sci. 2012;74: 335–339. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed13&AN=364569721 pmid:22067078

67. Lu DZ, Fan HG, Wang HB, Hu K, Zhang JT, Yu SM. Effect of the addition of tramadol to a combination of tiletamine-zolazepam and xylazine for anaesthesia of miniature pigs. Vet Rec. 2010;167: 489–492. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20103297195 pmid:20871083

68. Lu DZ, Fan HG, Kun M, Song ZL, Ming YS, Sheng J, et al. Antagonistic effect of atipamezole, flumazenil and naloxone following anaesthesia with xylazine, tramadol and tiletamine/zolazepam combinations in pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2011;38: 301–309. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed12&AN=361954635 pmid:21672125

69. Lu D, Qin S, Ma X, Wang H, Ma B. Tramadol effect on the ketamine-medetomidine combination in immature Bamei pigs. Med Weter. 2013;69: 165–170. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20133112221

70. Softeland E, Framstad T, Thorsen T, Holmsen H. Evaluation of thiopentone-midazolam-fentanyl anesthesia in pigs. Lab Anim. 1995;29: 269–275. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba3&AN=19952213356

71. Becker S, Maier A, Peters S, Buttner K, Reiner G, et al. S-ketamine and intranasal application: alternatives for the castration of male suckling piglets?. BMC Vet Res. 17: 122. pmid:33726749

72. Hewlett J, Buss P, Olea-Popelka F, Koeppel K, Neiffer D, Hausler G, et al. Evaluation of a partially reversible immobilization protocol using medetomidine, butorphanol, zolazepam-tiletamine, and ketamine in free-ranging warthogs (phacochoerus africanus) in kruger national park, south africa. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2020;51: 80–87. pmid:32212549

73. Winner E-M, Beisl M, Gumbert S, Hartel H, Kaiser J, Wernecke A, et al. Implementation of piglet castration under inhalation anaesthesia on farrowing farms. Porc Heal Manag. 2022;8: 20. pmid:35581669

74. Zhang Z, Bai H, Zhang B, Shen M, Gao L, et al. Comparison of cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects of ketamine-midazolam-xylazine-sufentanil and tiletamine-zolazepam-xylazine in miniature pigs. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0271325. pmid:35819978

75. Bettschart-Wolfensberger R, Stauffer S, Hassig M, Flaherty D, Ringer SK. Racemic ketamine in comparison to S-ketamine in combination with azaperone and butorphanol for castration of pigs. SAT, Schweizer Arch fur Tierheilkd. 2013;155: 669–675. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20143007663 pmid:24297841

76. Hoareau GL, Peters A, Hilgart D, Iversen M, Clark G, Zabriskie M, et al. Feasibility of non-invasive recording of somatosensory evoked potential in pigs. Lab Anim Res. 38: 9. pmid:35331342

77. Cassu RN, Crociolli GC, Diniz MS, Guilhen RC, Yamasaki L. Continuous infusion rate of midazolam alone or in combination with fentanyl for endoscopy in swine. Cienc Rural. 2012;42: 2206–2212. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20123416719

78. Comassetto F, Beier SL, Farias FH, Menegasso RB, Regalin D, Tocheto R, et al. Analgesic and sedative evaluation of two protocols in swine underwent orchiectomy. Acta Sci Vet. 2014;42. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20153070308

79. de Monte V, Staffieri F, di Meo A, Vannucci J, Bufalari A. Comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine-methadone and tiletamine-zolazepam-methadone combinations for short-term anaesthesia in domestic pigs. Vet J. 2015;205: 364–368. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20153333645 pmid:26070949

80. Heinonen ML, Raekallio MR, Oliviero C, Ahokas S, Peltoniemi OA. Comparison of azaperone-detomidine-butorphanol-ketamine and azaperone-tiletamine-zolazepam for anaesthesia in piglets. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2009;36: 151–157. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med7&AN=19239653 pmid:19239653

81. Kim MJ, Park CS, Jun MH, Kim MC. Antagonistic effects of yohimbine in pigs anaesthetised with tiletamine/zolazepam and xylazine. Vet Rec. 2007;161: 620–624. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20073252825 pmid:17982141

82. Lee J, Kim M. Antagonistic effects of atipamezole and yohimbine against anesthesia with medetomidine and ketamine combination in pigs. J Vet Clin. 2011;28: 291–296. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20113286048

83. Linkenhoker JR, Burkholder TH, Linton CG, Walden A, Abusakran-Monday KA, Rosero AP, et al. Effective and safe anesthesia for Yorkshire and Yucatan swine with and without cardiovascular injury and intervention. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci JAALAS. 2010;49: 344–351. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med8&AN=20587167 pmid:20587167

84. Beydon L, Desfontis JC, Ganster F, Petres J, Gautier F, Ferec S, et al. BIS response to tamponade and dobutamine in swine varies with hypnotic/opiate ratio. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2009;28: 650–657. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed11&AN=50568351 pmid:19577409

85. Silva A, Ortiz AL, Venancio C, Souza AP, Ferreira LM, Branco PS, et al. Effects of acute bleeding followed by hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 or a crystalloid on propofol concentrations, cerebral oxygenation, and electroencephalographic and haemodynamic variables in pigs. Vet Med Int. 2014;2014: 710394. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=prem1&AN=24971192 pmid:24971192

86. Silva A, Venancio C, Ortiz AL, Souza AP, Amorim P, Ferreira DA. The effect of high doses of remifentanil in brain near-infrared spectroscopy and in electroencephalographic parameters in pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2014;41: 153–162. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6&AN=20143120885 pmid:24119044

87. Gopalakrishnan NA, Sakata DJ, Orr JA, McJames S, Westenskow DR. Hypercapnia shortens emergence time from inhaled anesthesia in pigs. Anesth Analg. 2007;104: 815–821. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed10&AN=46548302 pmid:17377087

88. Jaber SM, Sullivan S, Margulies SS. Noninvasive metrics for identification of brain injury deficits in piglets. Dev Neuropsychol. 2015;40: 34–39. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed16&AN=615356392 pmid:25649778

89. Johnson KB, Egan TD, Layman J, Kern SE, White JL, McJames SW. The influence of hemorrhagic shock on etomidate: A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesth Analg. 2003;96: 1360–1368. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=36512876 pmid:12707134

90. Egan T, Obara S, Jenkins T, Jaw-Tsai S, Amagasu S, Cook D, et al. A Novel, Metabolically Labile Sedative–Hypnotic Agent with Rapid and Predictable Emergence from Hypnosis. Anesthesiology. 2012;116: 1267–1277.

91. Cavus E, Meybohm P, Doerges V, Hoecker J, Betz M, Hanss R, et al. Effects of cerebral hypoperfusion on bispectral index: A randomised, controlled animal experiment during haemorrhagic shock. Resuscitation. 2010;81: 1183–1189. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed11&AN=50975776 pmid:20598424

92. Mathias LA, Piccinini Filho L, Rittes JC, Souza FS, Pedro JR, Cirillo W, et al. [Intravenous isoflurane in lipid emulsion promotes cardiovascular and respiratory stability. Experimental model.]. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2004;54: 650–662. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=prem1&AN=19471773

93. Egan TD, Kern SE, Johnson KB, Pace NL. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in a modified cyclodextrin formulation (Captisol) versus propofol in a lipid formulation (Diprivan): an electroencephalographic and hemodynamic study in a porcine model. Anesth Analg. 2003;97: 72–9, table of contents. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med5&AN=12818946 pmid:12818946

94. Johnson KB, Egan TD, Kern SE, White JL, McJames SW, Syroid N, et al. The influence of hemorrhagic shock on propofol: A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology. 2003;99: 409–420. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=36909567 pmid:12883414

95. Johnson KB, Egan TD, Kern SE, McJames SW, Cluff ML, Pace NL. Influence of hemorrhagic shock followed by crystalloid resuscitation on propofol: A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology. 2004;101: 647–659. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed8&AN=39121644 pmid:15329589

96. Kurita T, Uraoka M, Morita K, Sato S. Influence of progressive hemorrhage and subsequent cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the bispectral index during isoflurane anesthesia in a swine model. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72: 1614–1619. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed13&AN=365374401 pmid:22695430

97. Leitao CJ, Lima-Rodriguez JR, Ferreira F, Avelino C, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Antunes L. Parasympathetic Tone Activity Evaluation to Discriminate Ketorolac and Ketorolac/Tramadol Analgesia Level in Swine. Anesth Analg. 2019;129: 882–889. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emexb&AN=630993394 pmid:31425233

98. Havranek S, Belohlavek J, Mlcek M, Huptych M, Boucek T, Svoboda T, et al. Median frequencies of prolonged ventricular fibrillation treated by V-A ECMO correspond to a return of spontaneous circulation rate. Int J Artif Organs. 2014;37: 48–57. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed15&AN=372289228 pmid:24634334

99. Haga HA, Ranheim B. Castration of piglets: the analgesic effects of intratesticular and intrafunicular lidocaine injection. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2005;32: 1–9. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20053052020 pmid:15663733

100. Kurita T, Kawashima S, Morita K, Nakajima Y. Intracranial Space-occupying Lesion Inducing Intracranial Hypertension Increases the Encephalographic Effects of Isoflurane in a Swine Model. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2019;31: 70–75. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emexa&AN=625493950 pmid:29683966

101. Kurita T, Morita K, Fukuda K, Takata K, Uraoka M, Sanjo Y, et al. Landiolol, an ultra-short-acting beta 1-adrenoceptor antagonist, does not alter the electroencephalographic effect of isoflurane in swine model. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96: 602–607. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed9&AN=43574200 pmid:16567345

102. Kurita T, Morita K, Fukuda K, Uraoka M, Takata K, Sanjo Y, et al. Influence of hypovolemia on the electroencephalographic effect of isoflurane in a swine model. Anesthesiology. 2005;102: 948–953. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med6&AN=15851881 pmid:15851881

103. Kurita T, Morita K, Fukuda K, Uraoka M, Takata K, Sanjo Y, et al. Influence of hemorrhagic shock and subsequent fluid resuscitation on the electroencephalographic effect of isoflurane in a swine model. Anesthesiology. 2005;103: 1189–1194. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed9&AN=41692502 pmid:16306731

104. Haga HA, Tevik A, Moerch H. Electroencephalographic and cardiovascular indicators of nociception during isoflurane anaesthesia in pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2001;28: 126–131. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba5&AN=20013113873 pmid:28404442

105. Rampil IJ, Laster M, Dwyer RC, Taheri S, Eger EI 2nd. No EEG evidence of acute tolerance to desflurane in swine. Anesthesiology. 1991;74: 889–892. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med3&AN=2021206 pmid:2021206

106. Rampil IJ, Weiskopf RB, Brown JG, Eger EI 2nd, Johnson BH, Holmes MA, et al. I653 and isoflurane produce similar dose-related changes in the electroencephalogram of pigs. Anesthesiology. 1988;69: 298–302. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med3&AN=3415010 pmid:3415010

107. Walter B, Eiselt M, Cumming P, Xiong G, Hinz R, Uthe S, et al. Resistance of brain glucose metabolism to thiopental-induced CNS depression in newborn piglets. Int J Dev Neurosci. 2013;31: 157–164. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed14&AN=368229804 pmid:23305916

108. Geovanini GR, Pinna FR, Prado FA, Tamaki WT, Marques E. Standardization of anesthesia in swine for experimental cardiovascular surgeries. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2008;58: 363–370. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med7&AN=19378584 pmid:19378584

109. Makiranta MJ, Jauhiainen JP, Oikarinen JT, Suominen K, Tervonen O, Alahuhta S, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of swine brain during change in thiopental anesthesia into EEG burst-suppression level—a preliminary study. Magma. 2002;15: 27–35. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med4&AN=12413562 pmid:12413562

110. Nucera M, Fabbri LP, Benassai C, Pinto F, Doni L, Fontanari P, et al. [Electroencephalographic findings during continuous infusion of propofol in experimental orthotopic transplant of the liver]. Minerva Anestesiol. 1990;56: 759–762. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med3&AN=2274183

111. Bollen PJ, Nielsen BJ, Toft P. Influence of endotoxin-induced sepsis on the requirements of propofol-fentanyl infusion rate in pigs. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2007;101: 192–196. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med6&AN=17697040 pmid:17697040

112. Boston JR, Davis PJ, Brandom BW, Roeber CM. Rate of change of somatosensory evoked potentials during isoflurane anesthesia in newborn piglets. Anesth Analg. 1990;70: 275–283. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed4&AN=20185112 pmid:2305979

113. Lieberman JA, Feiner J, Rollins M, Lyon R. Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during hemorrhage are associated with increased serum propofol concentrations. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32: 541–548. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emexa&AN=618098013 pmid:28856576

114. Sabir H, Wood T, Gill H, Liu X, Dingley J, Thoresen M. Xenon depresses aEEG background voltage activity whilst maintaining cardiovascular stability in sedated healthy newborn pigs. J Neurol Sci. 2016;363: 140–144. Available: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emexa&AN=608576067 pmid:27000239

115. Kim MC, Fricchione GL, Akeju O. Accidental awareness under general anaesthesia: Incidence, risk factors, and psychological management. BJA Educ. 2021;21: 154–161. pmid:33777414

116. Liu WHD, Thorp TAS, Graham SG, Aitkenhead AR. Incidence of awareness with recall during general anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1991;46: 435–437. pmid:2048657

117. Purdon PL, Sampson A, Pavone KJ, Brown EN. Clinical Electroencephalography for Anesthesiologists: Part I: Background and Basic Signatures. Anesthesiology. 2015;123: 937–60. pmid:26275092

118. ÅAkeson J, Messeter K, Rosen I, BjÖoUrkman S. Cerebral haemodynamic and electrocortical CO2 reactivity in pigs anaesthetized with fentanyl, nitrous oxide and pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1993;37: 85–91. pmid:8424303

119. Drummond JC, Brann CA, Perkins DE, Wolfe DE. A comparison of median frequency, spectral edge frequency, a frequency band power ratio, total power, and dominance shift in the determination of depth of anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1991;35: 693–699. pmid:1763588

120. Liu Q, Chen YF, Fan SZ, Abbod MF, Shieh JS. Improved spectrum analysis in EEG for measure of depth of anesthesia based on phase-rectified signal averaging. Physiol Meas. 2017;38: 116–138. pmid:28033111

121. Bruhn J, Myles PS, Sneyd R, Struys MMRF. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring: What’s available, what’s validated and what’s next? Br J Anaesth. 2006;97: 85–94. pmid:16751211

122. Boord MS, Moezzi B, Davis D, Ross TJ, Coussens S, Psaltis PJ, et al. Investigating how electroencephalogram measures associate with delirium: A systematic review. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132: 246–257. pmid:33069620

123. Soehle M, Dittmann A, Ellerkmann RK, Baumgarten G, Putensen C, Guenther U. Intraoperative burst suppression is associated with postoperative delirium following cardiac surgery: A prospective, observational study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15: 1–8. pmid:25928189

124. Fritz BA, Kalarickal PL, Maybrier HR, Muench MR, Dearth D, Chen Y, et al. Intraoperative Electroencephalogram Suppression Predicts Postoperative Delirium. Anesth Analg. 2016;122: 234–242. pmid:26418126

125. Weir CJ. The molecular mechanisms of general anaesthesia: Dissecting the GABAA receptor. Contin Educ Anaesthesia, Crit Care Pain. 2006;6: 49–53.

126. Lambert DG. Mechanisms of action of general anaesthetic drugs. Anaesth Intensive Care Med. 2011;12: 141–143.

127. Pleuvry BJ. Mechanism of action of general anaesthetic drugs. Anaesth Intensive Care Med. 2004;5: 352–353.

128. Rampil IJ. No correlation between QEEG measurements and movement response to noxius stimuli during isoflurane anesthesia in rats. Anesthesiology. 1992;77: 920–925.

129. Rampil IJ, Mason P, Singh H. Anesthetic Potency (MAC) Is Independent of Forebrain Structures in the Rat. Anesthesiology. 1993;78: 707–712. pmid:8466071

130. Rampil IJ. Anesthetic potency is not altered after hypothermic spinal cord transection in rats. Anesthesiology. 1994. pp. 606–610. pmid:8141455

131. Antognini JF, Schwartz MD. Exaggerated anesthetic requirements in the preferentially anaesthetized brain. Anesthesiology. 1993;79: 1244–1249.

132. Antognini JF, Carstens E, Atherley R. Does the immobilizing effect of thiopental in brain exceed that of halothane? Anesthesiology. 2002;96: 980–986. pmid:11964608

133. White D. Uses of MAC. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91: 167–169. pmid:12878612

134. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. Practice Advisory for Intraoperative Awareness and Brain Function Monitoring. Anesthesiology. 2006;104: 847–864. pmid:16571982

135. Noreika V, Jylhänkangas L, Móró L, Valli K, Kaskinoro K, Aantaa R, et al. Consciousness lost and found: Subjective experiences in an unresponsive state. Brain Cogn. 2011;77: 327–334. pmid:21986366

136. Sanders RD, Tononi G, Laureys S, Sleigh JW. Unresponsiveness ≠ unconsciousness. Anesthesiology. 2012;116: 946–959. pmid:22314293

137. Bayne K, Ramachandra GS, Rivera EA, Wang J. The evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015;54: 181–191. pmid:25836965

138. MacArthur Clark J. The 3Rs in research: A contemporary approach to replacement, reduction and refinement. Br J Nutr. 2018;120: S1–S7. pmid:29081302

139. Hubrecht RC CE. The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animals. 2019;9: 754. pmid:31575048

140. Brenner GB, Giricz Z, Garamvölgyi R, Makkos A, Onódi Z, Sayour N V., et al. Post-myocardial infarction heart failure in closed-chest coronary occlusion/reperfusion model in göttingen minipigs and landrace pigs. J Vis Exp. 2021;2021. pmid:33938885

141. Shrader SM, Greentree WF. Göttingen Minipigs in Ocular Research. Toxicol Pathol. 2018;46: 403–407. pmid:29683084

142. Alex A, Chaney EJ, Žurauskas M, Criley JM, Spillman DR, Hutchison PB, et al. In vivo characterization of minipig skin as a model for dermatological research using multiphoton microscopy. Exp Dermatol. 2020;29: 953–960. pmid:33311854

143. Musskopf ML, Stadler AF, Wikesjö UME, Susin C. The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17: 1–17. pmid:35226690