Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 2016
Multicenter Study Comparative Study Observational StudyA Multicenter Pilot Study Assessing Regional Cerebral Oxygen Desaturation Frequency During Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Responsiveness to an Intervention Algorithm.
The purpose of this multicenter pilot study was to: (1) determine the frequency of regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rScO2) desaturations during cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB); (2) evaluate the accuracy of clinician-identified rScO2 desaturations compared with those recorded continuously during surgery by the near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) monitor; and (3) assess the effectiveness of an intervention algorithm for reversing rScO2 desaturations. ⋯ This multicenter pilot study found that 50% to 75% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery experience one or more rScO2 desaturations during CPB. Nearly 10% of desaturation events were not identified by clinicians, suggesting that appropriate alarming systems should be adopted to alert clinicians of such events. The intervention algorithm was effective in reversing clinically identified rScO2 desaturations in the majority of events.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 2016
ReviewThe Risks to Patient Privacy from Publishing Data from Clinical Anesthesia Studies.
In this article, we consider the privacy implications of posting data from small, randomized trials, observational studies, or case series in anesthesia from a few (e.g., 1-3) hospitals. Prior to publishing such data as supplemental digital content, the authors remove attributes that could be used to re-identify individuals, a process known as "anonymization." Posting health information that has been properly "de-identified" is assumed to pose no risks to patient privacy. Yet, computer scientists have demonstrated that this assumption is flawed. ⋯ For a patient selected uniformly at random, the probability that an adversary could match this patient's record to a unique record in the state external database was 42.8% (SE < 0.1%). Despite the 42.8% being an unacceptably high level of risk, it underestimates the risk for patients from smaller states or provinces. We propose an editorial policy that greatly reduces the likelihood of a privacy breach, while supporting the goal of transparency of the research process.