Literature DB >> 23632737

Use of a decision support system improves the management of hemodynamic and respiratory events in orthopedic patients under propofol sedation and spinal analgesia: a randomized trial.

Cedrick Zaouter1, Mohamad Wehbe, Shantale Cyr, Joshua Morse, Riccardo Taddei, Pierre A Mathieu, Thomas M Hemmerling.   

Abstract

Decision support systems (DSSs) have been successfully implemented into clinical practice offering clinical suggestions and treatment options with excellent results in various clinical settings. Although their results appeared promising, showing that DSSs can increase anesthesiologists' vigilance and patient safety during surgery, DSSs have never been used before to help anesthesiologists in identifying critical events in patients under spinal analgesia with sedation. We have developed and clinically evaluated a DSS for this specific task. The DSS was developed with the ability to indicate respiratory and hemodynamic critical events via audio-visual alarms and give decisional aid. Critical respiratory events were defined as SpO2 <92 % and/or respiratory rate <8/min. Critical hemodynamic events were defined as mean arterial pressure (MAP) <60 mmHg and/or heart rate <40 bpm. The objective of this trial was to determine the duration to detect and treat these critical events with the help of the DSS (DSS Group) compared with a standard Control Group where the system was not in place. One hundred and fifty orthopedic patients undergoing spinal analgesia with propofol sedation were enrolled in this randomized control trial, 75 each group. All respiratory and hemodynamic critical events were detected in the DSS Group, while in the Control Group 26 % of the events were not detected.The delay to detect and treat critical events was significantly shorter (P < 0.0001) in the DSS Group at 9.1 ± 3.6 s, whereas 27.5 ± 18.9 s were necessary to identify them in the Control Group. There were no significant differences in physiological parameters in the two groups during surgery. The number of critical events/h occurring and the duration of surgery were similar in both groups. The number of hypoxemia episodes was significantly less (P = 0.036) in the DSS group (0.7 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 2.2 for the Control Group). The DSS tested in this trial could help the clinician to detect and treat critical events more efficiently and in a shorter length of time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632737     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-013-9466-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  18 in total

1.  On error management: lessons from aviation.

Authors:  R L Helmreich
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-18

2.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.

Authors:  C Vincent; G Neale; M Woloshynowych
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

3.  A knowledge-based approach to intelligent alarms in anesthesia.

Authors:  T Schecke; G Rau; H J Popp; H Kasmacher; G Kalff; H J Zimmermann
Journal:  IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag       Date:  1991

4.  Comparison of four different display designs of a novel anaesthetic monitoring system, the 'integrated monitor of anaesthesia (IMA)'.

Authors:  S Charabati; D Bracco; P A Mathieu; T M Hemmerling
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Comparing two anesthesia information management system user interfaces: a usability evaluation.

Authors:  Jonathan P Wanderer; Anoop V Rao; Sarah H Rothwell; Jesse M Ehrenfeld
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 5.063

7.  How many variables can humans process?

Authors:  Graeme S Halford; Rosemary Baker; Julie E McCredden; John D Bain
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-01

8.  Human performance consequences of automated decision aids in states of sleep loss.

Authors:  Juliane Reichenbach; Linda Onnasch; Dietrich Manzey
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.888

9.  The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada.

Authors:  G Ross Baker; Peter G Norton; Virginia Flintoft; Régis Blais; Adalsteinn Brown; Jafna Cox; Ed Etchells; William A Ghali; Philip Hébert; Sumit R Majumdar; Maeve O'Beirne; Luz Palacios-Derflingher; Robert J Reid; Sam Sheps; Robyn Tamblyn
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-05-25       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Propofol infusion during regional anesthesia: sedative, amnestic, and anxiolytic properties.

Authors:  I Smith; T G Monk; P F White; Y Ding
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  3 in total

1.  Closed-loop systems and automation in the era of patients safety and perioperative medicine.

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Joseph Rinehart
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  A novel system for automated propofol sedation: hybrid sedation system (HSS).

Authors:  Cedrick Zaouter; Riccardo Taddei; Mohamad Wehbe; Erik Arbeid; Shantale Cyr; Francesco Giunta; Thomas M Hemmerling
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  [Perioperative risk and mortality after major surgery].

Authors:  O Boehm; M K A Pfeiffer; G Baumgarten; A Hoeft
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.041

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.