PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 3585436

Controlled hypotension with sodium nitroprusside: anesthesiologist versus computer.

Abstract

Computer systems developed for the automatic control of blood pressure have been previously shown to induce hypotension with sodium nitroprusside more rapidly and accurately than can be done with manual control. We compared the performance of a computer controller with performances by 10 anesthesiologists during challenges to homeostasis similar (or analogous) to those occurring during a surgical procedure. Hypotension was induced in 10 mongrel dogs and maintained for 2 hours, either by an anesthesiologist or by the computer controller. Challenges to homeostasis were given during the 2-hour period. The computer brought the mean arterial pressure to the desired value in an average of 4.1 minutes compared with 6.3 minutes for the anesthesiologists, but this difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference between the computer and the anesthesiologists for 25 performance criteria. The anesthesiologists performed better during two imposed hypertensive perturbations by turning off the sodium nitroprusside sooner when the pressure rapidly decreased. In general, the computer controller performed as well as experienced anesthesiologists who devoted full attention to the control of blood pressure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D R Westenskow, L Meline, N L Pace. 1987. Controlled hypotension with sodium nitroprusside: anesthesiologist versus computer.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00858354

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perception of training needs and opportunities in advanced airway skills: a survey of British and Irish trainees.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We surveyed delegates at the Group of Anaesthetists in Training (UK) meeting to investigate evidence of a training-gap (number of fibreoptic intubations believed to bestow competence vs. number actually performed). METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to and collected from delegates in person. Questions covered six areas, including experience of fibreoptic intubation and cricothyrotomy, fibreoptic intubation as a specialist skill and ethical issues. RESULTS: We received 221 replies (76%). All trainees believed competence to be achievable with 10 intubations (interquartile range (IQR) 10-20); the median number performed was 2 (IQR 0-4). This was statistically significant for the groups' senior house officers, 1st and 2nd year registrars and 3rd and 4th year registrars; P < 0.0001. Many final year trainees (12/20, 60%) also failed to achieve their competency target. Few trainees had seen or performed any cricothyrotomies (medians 0, IQRs 0-1 and 0-0). Most (195/208, 94%) believed that fibreoptic intubation was a core skill and 199/212 (94%) believed that all should be competent by completion of training. Ten percent (n = 208) felt it unethical to perform an awake training intubation with full consent and 10% believed it acceptable without explanation. Most (82.7%) would fibreoptically intubate an asleep patient (requiring intubation) without consent. CONCLUSION: Trainees reported a gap between their perception of competence and achievement in awake fibreoptic intubation. Simple and complex simulations and structured training programmes may help. Anaesthetists must address the ethics of clinical training in advanced airway management.

Anesthesiology↗