通过手动控制与潮气末控制进行麻醉:范围综述

IF 1.4 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
John W. Beard , Stephanie Yacoubian , Marco Luchetti , Halit O. Yapici , R.R. Kennedy
{"title":"通过手动控制与潮气末控制进行麻醉:范围综述","authors":"John W. Beard ,&nbsp;Stephanie Yacoubian ,&nbsp;Marco Luchetti ,&nbsp;Halit O. Yapici ,&nbsp;R.R. Kennedy","doi":"10.1016/j.tacc.2024.101501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This scoping review examined available evidence, including usability, efficiency, and accuracy, on the delivery of general inhaled anesthesia with End-tidal Control (EtC) versus manual methods. Data was extracted to identify consistency in measurements used, trends in subsequent outcomes, and areas for further study.</div><div>Twelve studies were identified: six (50.0 %) were randomized controlled trials. Nine studies (75.0 %) evaluated usability outcomes, eight (66.7 %) assessed efficiency-related outcomes, and six (50.0 %) compared the accuracy of target-level maintenance during anesthesia, between EtC and manual control.</div><div>Overall, 66.7 % (n = 6) of studies assessing usability found EtC required less than half as many provider interventions than manual control. The majority of studies found EtC performed as well or better than manual control, rapidly reaching target concentrations of anesthetic agent or oxygen. Four out of five studies evaluating the duration of concentration deviations found that EtC maintained concentrations within 10 % of targets for at least 90 % of the duration of delivery. Studies evaluating clinician feedback favored EtC over manual adjustments.</div><div>The findings of this review can inform anesthesia providers regarding the potential implications of using EtC for automated anesthesia delivery. Future research should provide additional prospective/randomized data from large samples, mimicking existing variables to allow continuity and quantitative synthesis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":44534,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 101501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anesthesia delivery via manual control versus end-tidal control: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"John W. Beard ,&nbsp;Stephanie Yacoubian ,&nbsp;Marco Luchetti ,&nbsp;Halit O. Yapici ,&nbsp;R.R. Kennedy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tacc.2024.101501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This scoping review examined available evidence, including usability, efficiency, and accuracy, on the delivery of general inhaled anesthesia with End-tidal Control (EtC) versus manual methods. Data was extracted to identify consistency in measurements used, trends in subsequent outcomes, and areas for further study.</div><div>Twelve studies were identified: six (50.0 %) were randomized controlled trials. Nine studies (75.0 %) evaluated usability outcomes, eight (66.7 %) assessed efficiency-related outcomes, and six (50.0 %) compared the accuracy of target-level maintenance during anesthesia, between EtC and manual control.</div><div>Overall, 66.7 % (n = 6) of studies assessing usability found EtC required less than half as many provider interventions than manual control. The majority of studies found EtC performed as well or better than manual control, rapidly reaching target concentrations of anesthetic agent or oxygen. Four out of five studies evaluating the duration of concentration deviations found that EtC maintained concentrations within 10 % of targets for at least 90 % of the duration of delivery. Studies evaluating clinician feedback favored EtC over manual adjustments.</div><div>The findings of this review can inform anesthesia providers regarding the potential implications of using EtC for automated anesthesia delivery. Future research should provide additional prospective/randomized data from large samples, mimicking existing variables to allow continuity and quantitative synthesis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"58 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210844024001709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210844024001709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本范围综述研究了使用潮气末控制(EtC)与手动方法进行全身吸入麻醉的可用性、效率和准确性等方面的证据。对数据进行了提取,以确定所用测量方法的一致性、后续结果的趋势以及有待进一步研究的领域。共确定了 12 项研究:其中 6 项(50.0%)为随机对照试验。九项研究(75.0 %)评估了可用性结果,八项研究(66.7 %)评估了与效率相关的结果,六项研究(50.0 %)比较了 EtC 和人工控制在麻醉过程中维持目标水平的准确性。总体而言,66.7 %(n = 6)的可用性评估研究发现,与人工控制相比,EtC 所需的提供者干预少于一半。大多数研究发现,ETC 的性能与手动控制相当或更好,能迅速达到麻醉剂或氧气的目标浓度。对浓度偏差持续时间进行评估的五项研究中有四项发现,ETC 至少在 90% 的给药持续时间内将浓度维持在目标值的 10% 以内。对临床医生反馈进行评估的研究发现,ETC 比手动调整更受青睐。本综述的研究结果可以让麻醉提供者了解使用 EtC 进行自动麻醉给药的潜在影响。未来的研究应提供更多来自大样本的前瞻性/随机数据,模仿现有变量,以实现连续性和定量综合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anesthesia delivery via manual control versus end-tidal control: A scoping review
This scoping review examined available evidence, including usability, efficiency, and accuracy, on the delivery of general inhaled anesthesia with End-tidal Control (EtC) versus manual methods. Data was extracted to identify consistency in measurements used, trends in subsequent outcomes, and areas for further study.
Twelve studies were identified: six (50.0 %) were randomized controlled trials. Nine studies (75.0 %) evaluated usability outcomes, eight (66.7 %) assessed efficiency-related outcomes, and six (50.0 %) compared the accuracy of target-level maintenance during anesthesia, between EtC and manual control.
Overall, 66.7 % (n = 6) of studies assessing usability found EtC required less than half as many provider interventions than manual control. The majority of studies found EtC performed as well or better than manual control, rapidly reaching target concentrations of anesthetic agent or oxygen. Four out of five studies evaluating the duration of concentration deviations found that EtC maintained concentrations within 10 % of targets for at least 90 % of the duration of delivery. Studies evaluating clinician feedback favored EtC over manual adjustments.
The findings of this review can inform anesthesia providers regarding the potential implications of using EtC for automated anesthesia delivery. Future research should provide additional prospective/randomized data from large samples, mimicking existing variables to allow continuity and quantitative synthesis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
13.30%
发文量
60
审稿时长
33 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信