Is Electroencephalographic Burst-Suppression Good, Bad, or Indifferent for Brain Health? Context Matters
Access to this document is restricted. Some items have been embargoed at the request of the author, but will be made publicly available after the "No Access Until" date.
During the embargo period, you may request access to the item by clicking the link to the restricted file(s) and completing the request form. If we have contact information for a Cornell author, we will contact the author and request permission to provide access. If we do not have contact information for a Cornell author, or the author denies or does not respond to our inquiry, we will not be able to provide access. For more information, review our policies for restricted content.
Intraoperative burst-suppression (BSP) has long been postulated to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative delirium (POD) based on data from human experimental studies and meta-analyses. However, the effects of BSP on POD are not consistently demonstrated in large-scale randomized controlled trials. At a minimum, this warrants an explanation of the discrepancies between these results, and at a maximum, prompts the questioning of the utility of intraoperative electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring for POD altogether. Here, we provide a narrative review of the mechanisms of BSP generation in several clinical contexts, including those produced by general anesthetics and neuronal pathologies, the role and utility of BSP in cerebral protection strategies, and the significance of BSP with respect to long-term functional neurological outcomes. We offer a framework with which to understand BSP generation across clinical contexts and discuss its scientific and clinical implications.