Background This study compares the analgesic indices Analgesia Nociception Index (heart rate variability), Surgical Pleth Index (photoplethysmography), and pupillary dilatation, to heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and bispectral index, with regard to diagnostic accuracy and prediction probability for nociceptive response. The primary endpoint was the correlation between Δ values and the remifentanil dose administered. Methods We anesthetized 38 patients with propofol and increasing doses of remifentanil and applied standardized tetanic and intracutaneous electrical painful stimulations on each analgesic level. Baseline and Δ values of the Analgesia Nociception Index, the Surgical Pleth Index, pupillary dilatation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and bispectral index and their relation to remifentanil doses were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic curves, prediction probability (PK), and mixed-model analysis. Results Under propofol sedation, sensitivity and specificity of the Analgesia Nociception Index (PK = 0.98), the Surgical Pleth Index (PK = 0.87), and pupillary dilatation (PK = 0.98) for detecting both painful stimulations were high compared to heart rate (PK = 0.74), mean arterial pressure (PK = 0.75), and bispectral index (PK = 0.55). Baseline values had limited prediction probability toward the nociceptive response (Analgesia Nociception Index: PK = 0.7; Surgical Pleth Index: PK = 0.63; pupillary dilatation: PK = 0.67; and bispectral index: PK = 0.67). The remifentanil dose had an effect (P < 0.001) on all parameters except for bispectral index (P = 0.216). Conclusions The Analgesia Nociception Index, the Surgical Pleth Index, and pupillary dilatation are superior in detecting painful stimulations compared to heart rate and mean arterial pressure but had limited predictive value. These effects are attenuated by increasing dosages of remifentanil. Our data confirm that bispectral index is not a marker of analgesia.

No abstract

The paper examines invective text types of the 16th century by means of rhetoric-historical considerations. The central question is which invective concern is claimed on the title page and how it relates to the rest of the text. The guiding idea is that the reconstruction of the rhetorical concern is possible by means of the genera doctrine of rhetoric and that it allows to describe potential patterns of reception in order to plausibilise potential effects. The following considerations are intended to be understood as a methodological contribution to the interpretation of the potential reception of invective writings of the 16th century against the background of the argumentation strategies articulated on the title page.

No abstract