Suppr超能文献

英国麻醉医生对麻醉知晓和麻醉深度监测的态度。

Attitudes of anaesthetists to awareness and depth of anaesthesia monitoring in the UK.

作者信息

Lau K, Matta B, Menon D K, Absalom A R

机构信息

University Division of Anaesthesia, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006 Nov;23(11):921-30. doi: 10.1017/S0265021506000743. Epub 2006 May 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Awareness with postoperative recall of intraoperative events is a rare but serious complication of general anaesthesia. This survey investigated the attitude of anaesthetists in the UK to awareness and depth of anaesthesia monitoring.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 4927 consultant anaesthetists in 285 hospitals in the UK in September 2004. The responses were recorded in an electronic database, summarized and compared with the results of studies performed in Australia and the USA.

RESULTS

The response rate was 44%. When judged against published awareness rates, anaesthetists underestimated the incidence of awareness in their own practice (median 1: 5000). One-third of respondents have dealt with patients who have experienced intraoperative recall. The majority of anaesthetists perceived awareness as a minor problem on an 11-point scale (modal score 2, median score 3, IQR 2-5). Eighty-six percent of anaesthetists considered clinical signs unreliable but 91% felt that measurement of end-tidal anaesthetic agent concentration reduces the likelihood of awareness. The majority of anaesthetists would use a monitor at least some of the time if one was available to them. Overall, the attitudes of anaesthetists in the UK, USA and Australia are remarkably similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthetists tend not to view awareness as a serious problem. Although most accept that clinical signs are unreliable indicators of awareness, few believe that monitors of anaesthetic depth should be used for routine cases.

摘要

背景与目的

全麻术后对术中事件存在回忆的知晓是一种罕见但严重的并发症。本调查研究了英国麻醉医生对知晓及麻醉深度监测的态度。

方法

2004年9月向英国285家医院的4927名麻醉科顾问医生发放问卷。回复记录在电子数据库中,进行汇总并与在澳大利亚和美国开展的研究结果进行比较。

结果

回复率为44%。与已公布的知晓率相比,麻醉医生低估了自己实际工作中知晓的发生率(中位数为1:5000)。三分之一的受访者曾处理过经历术中回忆的患者。大多数麻醉医生在11分制量表上认为知晓是个小问题(众数分数为2,中位数分数为3,四分位间距为2 - 5)。86%的麻醉医生认为临床体征不可靠,但91%的人认为监测呼气末麻醉药浓度可降低知晓的可能性。如果有监测设备,大多数麻醉医生至少会在某些时候使用。总体而言,英国、美国和澳大利亚麻醉医生的态度非常相似。

结论

麻醉医生往往不认为知晓是一个严重问题。尽管大多数人承认临床体征是知晓的不可靠指标,但很少有人认为麻醉深度监测仪应用于常规病例。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验