Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
BRIEF COMMUNICATION  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed166    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

The utilization spectrum of cardiac output monitoring devices among anesthesiology programs across Veterans Health Administration in the United States


1 Department of Anesthesiology, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
2 Department of Anesthesiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Nader D Nader
77 Goodell St. Suite #550, Buffalo, NY, 14203
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_107_18

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 199-203

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (590 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Background: Electronic monitoring of physiologic variables has gained widespread support over the past decade for critical patients in the intensive care setting. Specifically, anesthesiologists have increased the emphasis and practice of hemodynamic control through monitoring cardiac output (CO). However, these physicians are presented with several options in terms of how they wish to study the trend of this physiologic parameter. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to 250 general and subspecialty-trained anesthesiologists. A series of questions were presented in terms of preference of patient monitoring methods requiring yes or no answers. Anesthesiologists were asked about subspecialty training, years since residency graduation, and preferences toward specific hemodynamic monitoring tools. Nonparametric statistical analysis and Chi-squared tests were used to analyze both normal and nonnormally distributed data. Results: CO monitoring devices were implemented by 106 out of 133 anesthesiologists, with 98 of these physicians utilizing CO monitoring for fluid and vasopressors response. Of the physicians implementing a monitoring device, 48 out of 107 physicians preferred pulmonary artery catheter, while pulse contour analysis was preferred by 17 anesthesiologists. An echocardiography unit was available to the department for 90 anesthesiologists, and 77 anesthesiologists were trained to use this technology for monitoring cardiac function. Conclusion: Many anesthesiologists have placed emphasis on the importance of CO monitoring within the intensive care setting. However, physicians are still faced with multiple options in terms of how they wish to specifically monitor this hemodynamic variable. Factors that influence such decisions include the time of physician's residency training along with patient and clinical case characteristics.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 BRIEF COMMUNICATION
 




1 Department of Anesthesiology, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
2 Department of Anesthesiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Nader D Nader
77 Goodell St. Suite #550, Buffalo, NY, 14203
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_107_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Electronic monitoring of physiologic variables has gained widespread support over the past decade for critical patients in the intensive care setting. Specifically, anesthesiologists have increased the emphasis and practice of hemodynamic control through monitoring cardiac output (CO). However, these physicians are presented with several options in terms of how they wish to study the trend of this physiologic parameter. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to 250 general and subspecialty-trained anesthesiologists. A series of questions were presented in terms of preference of patient monitoring methods requiring yes or no answers. Anesthesiologists were asked about subspecialty training, years since residency graduation, and preferences toward specific hemodynamic monitoring tools. Nonparametric statistical analysis and Chi-squared tests were used to analyze both normal and nonnormally distributed data. Results: CO monitoring devices were implemented by 106 out of 133 anesthesiologists, with 98 of these physicians utilizing CO monitoring for fluid and vasopressors response. Of the physicians implementing a monitoring device, 48 out of 107 physicians preferred pulmonary artery catheter, while pulse contour analysis was preferred by 17 anesthesiologists. An echocardiography unit was available to the department for 90 anesthesiologists, and 77 anesthesiologists were trained to use this technology for monitoring cardiac function. Conclusion: Many anesthesiologists have placed emphasis on the importance of CO monitoring within the intensive care setting. However, physicians are still faced with multiple options in terms of how they wish to specifically monitor this hemodynamic variable. Factors that influence such decisions include the time of physician's residency training along with patient and clinical case characteristics.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article