Control of Anesthesia Based on Singularly Perturbed Model

Part of the Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences book series (LNCIS, volume 471)


This chapter deals with the control of anesthesia taking into account the positivity together with the upper limitation constraints of the variables and the target interval tolerated for the depth of anesthesia during a surgery. Due to the presence of multiple time scale dynamics in the anesthesia model, the system is re-expressed through a singularly perturbed system allowing to decouple the fast dynamics from the slow ones. Differently from general approaches for singularly perturbed systems, the control objective is then to control and accelerate the fast subsystem without interest in modifying the slow dynamics. Thus, a structured state feedback control is proposed through quasi-LMI (linear matrix inequalities) conditions. The characterization of domains of stability and invariance for the system is provided. Associated convex optimization issues are then discussed. Finally, the theoretical conditions are evaluated on a simulated patient case.


Control of anesthesia BIS Positive constraints Singularly perturbed system State feedback LMI 


  1. 1.
    Lemos, J.M., Caiado, D.V., Costa, B.A., Paz, L.A., Mendonca, T.F., Esteves, S., Seabra, M.: Robust control of maintenance-phase anesthesia. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 34(6), 24–38 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soltesz, K., Hahn, J.-O., Dumont, G.A., Ansernimo, J.M.: Individualized PID control of depth of anesthesia based on patient model identification during the induction phase of anesthesia. In: IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC) Orlando USA, pp. 855–860, December 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddad, W.M., Hayakawa, T., Bailey, J.: Adaptive control for non-negative and compartmental dynamical systems with application on general anesthesia. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 17(3), 209–235 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gentilini, A., Schaniel, C., Morari, M., Bieniok, C., Wymann, R., Schnider, T.: A new paradigm for the closed-loop intraoperative administration of analgesics in humans. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 49(4), 289–299 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, C.L.: Modeling and control of pharmacodynamics. Eur. J. Control 24, 33–49 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhusubaliyev, Z.T., Medvedev, A., Silva, M.M.: Nonlinear dynamics in closed-loop anesthesia: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model under PID-feedback. In: American Control Conference, pp. 5496–5501, Portland, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiacchini, M., Queinnec, I., Tarbouriech, S., Mazerolles, M.: Invariant based control of induction and maintenance phases for anesthesia. In: 6th IFAC Conference on Foundations of Systems Biology in Engineering (FOSBE), MAgdeburg, Germany, October 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kokotovic, P.V., Khalil, H.K., O’Reilly, J.: Singular Perturbation Methods in Control; Analysis and Design. Academic, New York (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia, G., Tarbouriech, S.: Control of singularly perturbed systems by bounded control. In: American Control Conference, Denver, USA, pp. 4482–4487 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lizarraga, I., Tarbouriech, S., Garcia, G.: Control of singularly perturbed systems under actuator saturation. In: 16th World IFAC Congress, pp. 243–248, Prague, Czech Republic (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Derendorf, H., Meibohm, B.: Modeling of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (pk/pd) relationships: concepts and perspectives. Pharm. Res. 16(2), 176–185 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddad, W.M., Chellaboina, V., Hui, Q.: Nonnegative and Compartmental Dynamical Systems. Princeton (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coppens, M.J., Eleveld, D.J., Proost, J.H., Marks, L.A., Van Bocxlaer, J.F., Vereecke, H., Absalom, A.R., Struys, M.M.: An evaluation of using population pharmacokinetic models to estimate pharmacodynamic parameters for propofol and bispectral index in children. Anesthesiology 115(1), 83–93 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minto, C.F., Schneider, T.W., Shafer, S.L.: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. Model application. Anesthesiology 86(1), 24–33 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schnider, T.W., Minto, C.F., Gambus, P.L., Anderson, C., Goodale, D.B., Young, E.: The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. J. Am. Soc. Anesthesiol. 88(5), 1170–1182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bailey, J.M., Haddad, W.M.: Drug dosing control in clinical pharmacology. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 25(2), 35–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berman, A., Neumann, M., Stern, R.J.: Nonnegative Matrices in Dynamic Systems. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tarbouriech, S., Garcia, G., Gomes da Silva Jr., J.M., Queinnec, I.: Stability and Stalization of Linear Systems with Saturating Actuators. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyd, S., Ghaoui, L.E., Feron, E., Balakrishnan, V.: Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, June (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zabi, S., Queinnec, I., Tarbouriech, S., Garcia, G., Mazerolles, M.: New approach for the control of anesthesia based on dynamics decoupling. In: 9th IFAC Symposium on Biological and Medical Systems (BMS 2015), Berlin, Germany (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAAS-CNRS, Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Département D’anesthésie-réanimationCHU ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations