Petry A, Gockel H, Wulf H
Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin im Klinikum der Universität Kiel.
Anaesthesist. 1993 Aug;42(8):528-35.
Basic monitoring in cardiac anaesthesia embraces at least 19 different parameters of haemodynamics and blood gas analysis. In special cases additional measurements may be desirable, providing a total of up to 44 variables displayed on various monitors, as depicted in Fig. 2. The recording of such an amount of data is only feasible with automated recording systems. Therefore, in the past 6 years we have introduced three different computer systems to our cardiac anaesthesia workplaces. The experiences in their handling are reported. MATERIAL AND METHOD. Three systems were investigated: (1) System S 4000 (Siemens, Germany), based on a central processor unit (PDP 11, DEC, Japan) connected with 20 bedside input/output terminals and Sirecust 404a monitors (Siemens). The system collected the data in a ring buffer with a capacity for about 24-48 h. (2) Patient Care Manager (PCM; Siemens, Germany), a single workplace system based on an IBM-compatible personal computer (PC) with the operating system environment DOS 5.0/Windows 3.0. In our test configuration it was connected with a Sirecust 1281 monitor (Siemens). (3) Monitor-Data-Manager (MDM) (our own development). This single workplace system is also based on an IBM-compatible PC running under DOS and was connected to four different monitors used in our cardiac surgery operating theatre (Fig. 2). A second computer (Sirecust S 425, Siemens) served as an interface between the two 404 monitors (not featuring a serial output like RS 232) and the PC. The self-developed program for that interface was memory resistant and executable with three key presses when the anaesthetic record was started. The three systems were compared with regard to their ease of use, function and practicability. RESULTS. System S 4000: Because of the older system architecture, the response time to key inputs was fairly long and the menu structure somewhat uncomfortable. A major drawback was the limited data buffer capacity and the lack of a long-term storage medium as well as the lack of compatibility with the industry standard for PCs. Software interfaces to other companies' monitors were not implemented, limiting the system to the Sirecust 404 devices. Patient-Care-Manager: The user interface is a Windows 3.0 application representing an up-to-date graphical environment. Unfortunately some Windows features were not fully used, e.g. the free positioning and sizing of graphic windows and the color options. Drug inputs were somewhat long-winded, limiting the system's suitability for the operating theatre. The main disadvantage, however, was the lack of interfaces to monitors other than those from Siemens. Monitor Data Manager: The system was designed to sample data from all monitors operating in our hospital's heart surgery department. Each parameter was displayed in a digital form to get close control over the recorded data (Fig. 1b); additionally calculated values like total peripheral resistance or oxygen demand could be drawn from a separate window. Furthermore, key inputs were reduced to minimum, making drug inputs faster than the hand-written protocol. The ease of performing calculations of continuous drug infusions (from microgram/kg/min to ml/h pump speed) was particularly appreciated by the users. Since the data were saved as an ASCII file, they could easily be imported by any spreadsheet like Lotus 1-2-3 or Excel, providing the whole variety of their graphical presentation or calculation features. Because of the high sampling rate (3 min), even short-lasting drug effects could be registered, making the system favourable for scientific studies. CONCLUSION. Automated monitor data record systems are considered to be a prerequisite not only for research in anaesthesia but also for quality assurance. A basic requirement for wide acceptance in clinical practice is a user interface that provides fast and convenient key inputs as well as further information about parameters not displayed on other monitors. In our h
心脏麻醉中的基本监测至少涵盖19种不同的血流动力学参数和血气分析参数。在特殊情况下,可能需要进行额外测量,这样总共多达44个变量会显示在各种监护仪上,如图2所示。只有使用自动记录系统才能记录如此大量的数据。因此,在过去6年里,我们在心脏麻醉工作场所引入了三种不同的计算机系统。现将使用这些系统的经验报告如下。材料与方法。研究了三种系统:(1)S 4000系统(德国西门子公司),基于一个中央处理器单元(日本DEC公司的PDP 11),与20个床边输入/输出终端以及Sirecust 404a监护仪(西门子公司)相连。该系统将数据收集到一个容量约为24至48小时的环形缓冲区中。(2)患者护理管理器(PCM;德国西门子公司),一种基于IBM兼容个人计算机(PC)且运行DOS 5.0/Windows 3.0操作系统环境的单工作场所系统。在我们的测试配置中,它与一台Sirecust 1281监护仪(西门子公司)相连。(3)监护仪数据管理器(MDM)(我们自己开发的)。这个单工作场所系统同样基于一台运行DOS的IBM兼容PC,并连接到我们心脏外科手术室使用的四种不同监护仪上(图2)。第二台计算机(西门子公司的Sirecust S 425)作为两台404监护仪(不像RS 232那样具有串行输出)与PC之间的接口。该接口的自行开发程序具有抗内存功能,在开始麻醉记录时按三个键即可执行。对这三种系统在易用性、功能和实用性方面进行了比较。结果。S 4000系统:由于系统架构较旧,对按键输入的响应时间相当长,菜单结构也有些不便。一个主要缺点是数据缓冲区容量有限,缺乏长期存储介质,并且与PC行业标准不兼容。未实现与其他公司监护仪的软件接口,该系统仅限于Sirecust 404设备使用。患者护理管理器:用户界面是一个代表最新图形环境的Windows 3.0应用程序。不幸的是,一些Windows功能未得到充分利用,例如图形窗口的自由定位和大小调整以及颜色选项。药物输入有些繁琐,限制了该系统在手术室的适用性。然而,主要缺点是除了西门子公司的监护仪外,缺乏与其他监护仪的接口。监护仪数据管理器:该系统旨在从我们医院心脏外科部门运行的所有监护仪中采样数据。每个参数以数字形式显示,以便对记录的数据进行密切控制(图1b);此外,可以从一个单独窗口得出诸如总外周阻力或氧需求等计算值。此外,按键输入减至最少,使药物输入比手写记录更快。用户特别赞赏连续药物输注计算(从微克/千克/分钟到毫升/小时泵速)的简便性。由于数据以ASCII文件形式保存,它们可以很容易地被任何电子表格软件(如Lotus 1-2-3或Excel)导入,提供其各种图形表示或计算功能。由于采样率高(3分钟),即使是短暂的药物效应也能被记录下来,这使得该系统有利于科学研究。结论。自动监护仪数据记录系统不仅被认为是麻醉研究的先决条件,也是质量保证的先决条件。在临床实践中被广泛接受的一个基本要求是用户界面,它能提供快速便捷的按键输入以及关于其他监护仪未显示参数的进一步信息。在我们医院……