共 50 条
A survey of current practices, attitudes and demands of anaesthesiologists regarding the depth of anaesthesia monitoring in China
被引:1
|作者:
Zhan, Jian
[1
,2
]
Yi, Ting-Ting
[3
]
Wu, Zhuo-Xi
[1
]
Long, Zong-Hong
[1
]
Bao, Xiao-Hang
[1
]
Xiao, Xu-Dong
[1
]
Du, Zhi-Yong
[1
]
Wang, Ming-Jun
[4
]
Li, Hong
[1
]
机构:
[1] Army Med Univ, Dept Anaesthesiol, Affiliated Hosp 2, Chongqing 400037, Peoples R China
[2] Southwest Med Univ, Dept Anaesthesiol, Affiliated Hosp, Luzhou 646000, Sichuan, Peoples R China
[3] Chongqing Med Univ, Yongchuan Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol, Chongqing 402160, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol, Med Ctr 1, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
基金:
国家重点研发计划;
关键词:
Depth of anaesthesia;
Anaesthesiologists;
Awareness;
Analgesia;
Artificial intelligence;
EEG-BASED DEPTH;
BISPECTRAL INDEX;
INTRAOPERATIVE AWARENESS;
PROCESSED ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM;
PREVENT AWARENESS;
BRAIN;
ANESTHETISTS;
RECOVERY;
CHILDREN;
ENTROPY;
D O I:
10.1186/s12871-021-01510-7
中图分类号:
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号:
100217 ;
摘要:
Background In this study, we aimed to analyse survey data to explore two different hypotheses; and for this purpose, we distributed an online survey to Chinese anaesthesiologists. The hypothetical questions in this survey include: (1) Chinese anaesthesiologists mainly use the depth of anaesthesia (DoA) monitors to prevent intraoperative awareness and (2) the accuracy of these monitors is the most crucial performance factor during the clinical daily practice of Chinese anaesthesiologists. Methods We collected and statistically analysed the response of a total of 12,750 anesthesiologists who were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. The Chinese Society of Anaesthesiologists (CSA) trial group provided the email address of each anaesthesiologist, and the selection of respondents was random from the computerized system. Results The overall response rate was 32.0% (4037 respondents). Only 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.2-10.0%) of the respondents routinely used DoA monitors. Academic respondents (91.5, 90.3-92.7%) most frequently used DoA monitoring to prevent awareness, whereas nonacademic respondents (88.8, 87.4-90.2%) most frequently used DoA monitoring to guide the delivery of anaesthetic agents. In total, the number of respondents who did not use a DoA monitor and whose patients experienced awareness (61.7, 57.8-65.6%) was significantly greater than those who used one or several DoA monitors (51.5, 49.8-53.2%). Overall, the crucial performance factor during DoA monitoring was considered by 61.9% (60.4-63.4%) of the respondents to be accuracy. However, most respondents (95.7, 95.1-96.3%) demanded improvements in the accuracy of the monitors for DoA monitoring. In addition, broad application in patients of all ages (86.3, 85.2-87.4%), analgesia monitoring (80.4, 79.2-81.6%), and all types of anaesthetic agents (75.6, 74.3-76.9%) was reported. In total, 65.0% (63.6-66.5%) of the respondents believed that DoA monitors should be combined with EEG and vital sign monitoring, and 53.7% (52.1-55.2%) believed that advanced DoA monitors should include artificial intelligence. Conclusions Academic anaesthesiologists primarily use DoA monitoring to prevent awareness, whereas nonacademic anaesthesiologists use DoA monitoring to guide the delivery of anaesthetics. Anaesthesiologists demand high-accuracy DoA monitors incorporating EEG signals, multiple vital signs, and antinociceptive indicators. DoA monitors with artificial intelligence may represent a new direction for future research on DoA monitoring.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文