Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 977–984 | Cite as

Prediction of hemodynamic reactivity using dynamic variations of Analgesia/Nociception Index (∆ANI)

  • E. Boselli
  • R. Logier
  • L. Bouvet
  • B. Allaouchiche
Original Research


The Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI), a 0–100 non-invasive index calculated from heart rate variability, reflects the analgesia/nociception balance during general anesthesia. We hypothesized that dynamic variations of ANI (∆ANI) would provide better performance than static values to predict hemodynamic reactivity during desflurane/remifentanil general anesthesia. One hundred and twenty-eight patients undergoing ear–nose–throat or lower limb orthopedic surgery were analyzed in this prospective observational study. The ANI, heart rate and systolic blood pressure were recorded before induction, at skin incision, during procedure and at emergence from general anesthesia. Changes in these variables were recorded after 1 min for ANI (ANI1min) and 5 min for heart rate and systolic blood pressure. The dynamic variation of ANI at the different time points was defined as: ∆ANI = (ANI1min − ANI)/([ANI + ANI1min]/2). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were built to evaluate the performance of ANI, ANI1 min and ∆ANI to predict hemodynamic reactivity (increase by more than 20 % in heart rate and/or systolic blood pressure within 5 min). For the prediction of hemodynamic reactivity, better performance was observed with ∆ANI (area under ROC curve (AUC ROC) = 0.90) in comparison to ANI (ROC AUC = 0.50) and ANI1min (ROC AUC = 0.77). A ∆ANI threshold of −19 % predicts hemodynamic reactivity with 85 % [95 % CI 77–91] sensitivity and 85 % [95 % CI 81–89] specificity. Dynamic variations of ANI provide better performance than static values to predict hemodynamic reactivity during desflurane/remifentanil general anesthesia. These findings may be of interest for the individual adaptation of remifentanil doses guided by ∆ANI during general anesthesia, although this remains to be demonstrated.


Monitoring Intraoperative Analgesia Remifentanil 



The authors whish to thank Mrs Sandrine Fortuné and Mrs Emmanuelle Teyssier (anesthetic nurses from the Hospices Civils de Lyon performing their training course in research at the time of the study) for their participation in the study data collection and analysis.

Authors’ contributions

Emmanuel Boselli designed and conducted the study, performed data collection and prepared the manuscript. Régis Logier, Lionel Bouvet and Bernard Allaouchiche helped design the study and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.


This study was funded by institutional sources only.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Emmanuel Boselli has received travel grants for conference presentations and honoraria for speaking at symposia from MDoloris Medical Systems. Régis Logier is consultant for MDoloris Medical Systems. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Guignard B. Monitoring analgesia. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20:161–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruenewald M, Ilies C. Monitoring the nociception–anti-nociception balance. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2013;27:235–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoymork SC. Antinociceptive monitors: tools or fools? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:1035–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith D, Andrzejowski J, Smith A. Certainty and uncertainty: NICE guidance on ‘depth of anaesthesia’ monitoring. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:1000–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plaud B, Debaene B, Donati F, Marty J. Residual paralysis after emergence from anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:1013–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Jonckheere J, Bonhomme V, Jeanne M, Boselli E, Gruenewald M, Logier R, Richebé P. Physiological signal processing for individualized anti-nociception management during general anesthesia: a review. Yearb Med Inform. 2015;10:95–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeanne M, Clement C, De Jonckheere J, Logier R, Tavernier B. Variations of the analgesia nociception index during general anaesthesia for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26:289–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruenewald M, Ilies C, Herz J, Schoenherr T, Fudickar A, Hocker J, Bein B. Influence of nociceptive stimulation on analgesia nociception index (ANI) during propofol–remifentanil anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:1024–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ledowski T, Averhoff L, Tiong WS, Lee C. Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) to predict intraoperative haemodynamic changes: results of a pilot investigation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;58:74–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeanne M, Delecroix M, De Jonckheere J, Keribedj A, Logier R, Tavernier B. Variations of the analgesia nociception index during propofol anesthesia for total knee replacement. Clin J Pain. 2014;30:1084–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boselli E, Bouvet L, Bégou G, Dabouz R, Davidson J, Deloste JY, Rahali N, Zadam A, Allaouchiche B. Prediction of immediate postoperative pain using the analgesia/nociception index: a prospective observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:715–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boselli E, Daniela-Ionescu M, Bégou G, Bouvet L, Dabouz R, Magnin C, Allaouchiche B. Prospective observational study of the non-invasive assessment of immediate postoperative pain using the analgesia/nociception index (ANI). Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:453–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boselli E, Bouvet L, Allaouchiche B. Monitorage de l’analgésie avec l’Analgesia/Nociception Index: résultats des études cliniques chez les patients éveillés et anesthésiés. Le Praticien en Anesthésie Réanimation. 2015;19:78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouvet L, Stoian A, Rimmelé T, Allaouchiche B, Chassard D, Boselli E. Optimal remifentanil dosage for providing excellent intubating conditions when co-administered with a single standard dose of propofol. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:719–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouvet L, Stoian A, Jacquot-Laperrière S, Allaouchiche B, Chassard D, Boselli E. Laryngeal injuries and intubating conditions with or without muscular relaxation: an equivalence study. Can J Anaesth. 2008;55:674–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute. Pain Management. Practice guidelines for acute pain management in the perioperative setting: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:248–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeanne M, Logier R, De Jonckheere J, Tavernier B. Validation of a graphic measurement of heart rate variability to assess analgesia/nociception balance during general anesthesia. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:1840–1843.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Logier R, Jeanne M, De Jonckheere J, Dassonneville A, Delecroix M, Tavernier B. PhysioDoloris: a monitoring device for analgesia/nociception balance evaluation using heart rate variability analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:1194–1197.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Logier R, Jeanne M, Tavernier B, De Jonckheere J. Pain/analgesia evaluation using heart rate variability analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:4303–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeanne M, Logier R, De Jonckheere J, Tavernier B. Heart rate variability during total intravenous anesthesia: effects of nociception and analgesia. Auton Neurosci. 2009;147:91–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Initiative S. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galley HF. Editorial II: solid as a ROC. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93:623–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jordan D, Steiner M, Kochs EF, Schneider G. A program for computing the prediction probability and the related receiver operating characteristic graph. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1416–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boselli E, Jeanne M. Analgesia/nociception index for the assessment of acute postoperative pain. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:936–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bollag L, Ortner CM, Jelacic S, Rivat C, Landau R, Richebé P. The effects of low-dose ketamine on the analgesia nociception index (ANI) measured with the novel PhysioDoloris analgesia monitor: a pilot study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:291–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Édouard Herriot Hospital, Service d’anesthésie-réanimation, Hospices Civils de LyonClaude Bernard Lyon I University, University of LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.CIC-IT INSERM 1403University Hospital of Lille, Lille 2 UniversityLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations