↓ Skip to main content

Automated titration of propofol and remifentanil decreases the anesthesiologist’s workload during vascular or thoracic surgery: a randomized prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Automated titration of propofol and remifentanil decreases the anesthesiologist’s workload during vascular or thoracic surgery: a randomized prospective study
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10877-013-9453-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corinne Dussaussoy, Marine Peres, Virginie Jaoul, Ngai Liu, Thierry Chazot, Jean Picquet, Marc Fischler, Laurent Beydon

Abstract

Closed loop target-control infusion systems using a Bispectral (BIS) signal as an input (TCI Loop) can automatically maintain intravenous anesthesia in a BIS range of 40-60 %. Our purpose was to assess to what extent such a system could decrease anesthesia workload in comparison to the use of a stand alone TCI system manually adjusted to fit the same BIS range of 40-60 % (TCI Manual). Patients scheduled for elective vascular or thoracic surgery were randomized to the TCI Loop or TCI Manual method for administering propofol and remifentanil during both induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Assessment of workload was performed by an independent observer who quoted each time the physician looked at the BIS monitor. The number of propofol and remifentanil target modifications, the percentage of time of adequate anesthesia i.e. BIS in the range 40-60 and hemodynamic data were recorded. Eighteen patients per group were enrolled. Characteristics, duration of surgery and propofol-remifentanil consumption were similar between groups. However, the percentage of time in the BIS range 40-60 % was higher in the TCI Loop versus TCI Manual groups (94 % ± 12 vs. 74 % ± 19, p < 0.001). Mean arterial pressure was lower with TCI Manual (78 ± 6 vs. 88 ± 13 mmHg, p < 0.001). The number of times the anesthesiologist watched the controller or BIS monitor (p < 0.05) and the number of manual adjustments (p < 0.001) performed in each group was lower with TCI Loop group during induction and maintenance of anesthesia. An automated controller strikingly frees the anesthesiologist from manual intervention to adjust drug delivery.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
Turkey 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 36%
Engineering 12 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,305,567
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#399
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,182
of 196,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.