| Literature DB >> 35261595 |
Abstract
Rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have led to diagnostic, therapeutic, and intervention-based applications in the field of medicine. Today, there is a deep chasm between AI-based research articles and their translation to clinical anesthesia, which needs to be addressed. Machine learning (ML), the most widely applied arm of AI in medicine, confers the ability to analyze large volumes of data, find associations, and predict outcomes with ongoing learning by the computer. It involves algorithm creation, testing and analyses with the ability to perform cognitive functions including association between variables, pattern recognition, and prediction of outcomes. AI-supported closed loops have been designed for pharmacological maintenance of anesthesia and hemodynamic management. Mechanical robots can perform dexterity and skill-based tasks such as intubation and regional blocks with precision, whereas clinical-decision support systems in crisis situations may augment the role of the clinician. The possibilities are boundless, yet widespread adoption of AI is still far from the ground reality. Patient-related "Big Data" collection, validation, transfer, and testing are under ethical scrutiny. For this narrative review, we conducted a PubMed search in 2020-21 and retrieved articles related to AI and anesthesia. After careful consideration of the content, we prepared the review to highlight the growing importance of AI in anesthesia. Awareness and understanding of the basics of AI are the first steps to be undertaken by clinicians. In this narrative review, we have discussed salient features of ongoing AI research related to anesthesia and perioperative care. Copyright:Entities:
Keywords: Advances in anesthesia; artificial intelligence; machine learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35261595 PMCID: PMC8846233 DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_669_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Anaesth
Pharmacological robots for anesthesia and sedation
| Reference | Parameter | Infusion | Study population | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SISO systems | Struys | BIS | Propofol | 20 adults, gynec-laparoscopy | A closed-loop system clinically acceptable during general anesthesia |
| Absolam | BIS | Propofol | Orthopedic surgery, GA + RA | Clinically adequate anesthesia in 9 of 10 patients | |
| Liu | BIS | Propofol | RCT, 164 adults having elective surgery | Proportional-integral-differential algorithm. | |
| Puri | BIS | Propofol | RCT 40 adults, noncardiac surgery | Closed-loop system more effective and efficient than open | |
| Madhava | BIS | Propofol and Isoflurane | RCT 40 adults, cardiac surgery | Improved anesthetic agent delivery system (IAADS), a modification of closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) | |
| Neckebroek | BIS | Propofol | 36 patients, ICU sedation following cardiac surgery | Tighter control with computer-based control systems | |
| Pasin | BIS | Propofol | Meta-analysis of RCTs | BIS-guided TIVA reduces propofol requirements during induction, better maintains a target depth of anesthesia, and reduces recovery time. | |
| Eleveld | TOF | Rocuronium | Controller performance tested on 15 adults | Maintained target TOF count of one or two for 96% of the time | |
| Zaouter | BIS | Propofol | RCT 150 adults, orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia | CL system maintained a BIS of 65 better than humans. RR and SaO2 used as safety net | |
| MIMO systems | Liu | BIS | Propofol, remifentanil | RST 196 surgical patients | Dual closed-loop system - remifentanil infusion linked to propofol. Better maintenance of BIS than manual control |
| Hemmerling | BIS | Propofol | RCT, 186 adults, GA >1 h. “McSleepy” | Closed-loop system better at maintaining BIS and Analgoscore than manual administration | |
| Casas | BIS | Propofol Remifentanil | RCT 150 adults, noncardiac surgery | Closed-loop system was better than open system or TCI. | |
| Joosten | BIS | Propofol, remifentanil | 13 adults, major vascular surgery | This study demonstrates the clinical ability in realistic conditions of dual closed-loop systems to maintain their anesthetic and hemodynamic targets for the majority of the case-time in patients undergoing major vascular surgery. |
Pharmacological robots for hemodynamic management
| SISO | Ngan Kee 2007 | NIBP every 1 minute | Phenylephrine | 53 patients, spinal for elective LSCS | Simple on-off algorithm used. Limitations due to noninvasive BP measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ngan Kee | NIBP every 1 minute | Phenylephrine | RCT, 212 patients, spinal for elective LSCS | Proportional algorithm used. | |
| Rineheart | Blood pressure | Vasopressor | Simulated stable and unstable blood pressure | Target mean arterial pressure maintained better in the face of random disturbances | |
| Joosten | Invasive arterial pressure | Norepinephrine | 20 adults, elective surgery lasting 154 min | Closed loop vasopressor controller. Maintained MAP±5 mmHg of baseline | |
| Joosten | SV, SVV | Fluid bolus | 104 patients managed with CL-assisted GDFT paired with historical cohort of 104 manual GDFT patients. | Reduction in intraoperative net fluid balance, postoperative complications and shorter hospital LOS. | |
| MIMO | Joosten | BIS | Propofol, remifentanil | 13 adults, major vascular surgery | Anesthetic and hemodynamic targets maintained by dual closed-loop systems for the majority of the case-time in realistic conditions |