Smith N T, Quinn M L, Flick J, Fukui Y, Fleming R, Coles J R
Anesth Analg. 1984 Aug;63(8):715-22.
This report is divided into two parts. First, we developed two new servo control systems by modifying an existing one. The original system was designed to control inspired halothane concentration using mean arterial pressure; the two new systems were designed to control inspired halothane concentration using end-tidal concentration or to control mean arterial pressure using the automated infusion of nitroprusside. Second, we compared the performance of experienced physician and nurse anesthetists (nine, six, and six experiments, respectively). The experiments incorporated a standardized testing sequence of two changes in desired blood pressure (set point) and two pharmacologically induced disturbances in blood pressure (perturbations). The scoring was designed to examine how fast blood pressure changed (90% response time), how far past the set point it went (overshoot), how long it took to eliminate most of the fluctuations in blood pressure (settling time), and the degree of fluctuation of blood pressure after settling (stability). Given three systems to be tested, there were (3 X 14) 42 possible mean scores for the machine and 42 for the anesthetists. The machine scored better than the anesthetists in 38 out of 42 of the mean scores; the differences were statistically significant in 19 out of 42 scores. The wide scatter in performances of the anesthetists prevented the achievement of significance in nine cases with large differences between means. Thus when the scores from the three systems were combined to achieve a larger n value, the machine outperformed the anesthetist in 12 out of 14 scores.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
本报告分为两部分。首先,我们通过修改现有系统开发了两种新的伺服控制系统。原始系统旨在通过平均动脉压来控制吸入的氟烷浓度;两种新系统则旨在通过呼气末浓度来控制吸入的氟烷浓度,或者通过硝普钠的自动输注来控制平均动脉压。其次,我们比较了经验丰富的医生麻醉师和护士麻醉师的表现(分别进行了9次、6次和6次实验)。实验纳入了一个标准化的测试序列,包括两次所需血压变化(设定点)以及两次药理学诱导的血压干扰(扰动)。评分旨在考察血压变化的速度(90%响应时间)、超过设定点的幅度(过冲)、消除大部分血压波动所需的时间(稳定时间)以及稳定后血压的波动程度(稳定性)。鉴于有三个系统需要测试,机器的平均得分可能有(3×14)42种,麻醉师的平均得分也有42种。在42个平均得分中,机器得分高于麻醉师的有38个;在42个得分中,有19个差异具有统计学意义。麻醉师表现的广泛差异使得在9个均值差异较大的案例中未能达到显著性。因此,当将三个系统的得分合并以获得更大的n值时,在14个得分中,机器有12个得分优于麻醉师。(摘要截选至250字)