Search

Introduction: The growing number of learners implies that all of them cannot play an active role during high-fidelity scenarios. Studies suggest a positive educational value when learners are observers only, but it remains uncertain whether learning outcomes might be improved by using an observer tool (OT)., Methods: Eighty-nine anesthesia residents were randomized to use an OT (n = 44, OT+; based on a cognitive aid) or not (n = 45, OT-) when not role-playing. The main outcome parameter was the learning outcomes assessed by comparing the change (before-after) in the response score to a questionnaire dedicated to medical knowledge obtained in the OT+ and OT- groups. The impact of using the OT was also assessed by measuring the perceived stress level and the change of the Anesthetists' Non-Technical Skill items values., Results: At the end of the session, the mean medical knowledge score (mean ± SD) was higher in the OT+ group than in the OT- group (11.4 ± 2.7 vs. 9.6 ± 2.4, respectively, P = 0.0008). The mean Anesthetists' Non-Technical Skill score and level of stress perceived did not differ between groups. Trainees rated similarly the learning value and satisfaction related to the simulation course., Conclusions: This study suggests that observing high-fidelity simulation scenarios using an OT based on a cognitive aid increases the medical knowledge gain when compared with that seen in passive observers. This study suggests that the use of an OT improves the educational value of simulation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.)

Background: Individualized hemodynamic management during surgery relies on accurate titration of vasopressors and fluids. In this context, computer systems have been developed to assist anesthesia providers in delivering these interventions. This study tested the hypothesis that computer-assisted individualized hemodynamic management could reduce intraoperative hypotension in patients undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery., Methods: This single-center, parallel, two-arm, prospective randomized controlled single blinded superiority study included 38 patients undergoing abdominal or orthopedic surgery. All included patients had a radial arterial catheter inserted after anesthesia induction and connected to an uncalibrated pulse contour monitoring device. In the manually adjusted goal-directed therapy group (N = 19), the individualized hemodynamic management consisted of manual titration of norepinephrine infusion to maintain mean arterial pressure within 10% of the patient's baseline value, and mini-fluid challenges to maximize the stroke volume index. In the computer-assisted group (N = 19), the same approach was applied using a closed-loop system for norepinephrine adjustments and a decision-support system for the infusion of mini-fluid challenges (100 ml). The primary outcome was intraoperative hypotension defined as the percentage of intraoperative case time patients spent with a mean arterial pressure of less than 90% of the patient's baseline value, measured during the preoperative screening. Secondary outcome was the incidence of minor postoperative complications., Results: All patients were included in the analysis. Intraoperative hypotension was 1.2% [0.4 to 2.0%] (median [25th to 75th] percentiles) in the computer-assisted group compared to 21.5% [14.5 to 31.8%] in the manually adjusted goal-directed therapy group (difference, -21.1 [95% CI, -15.9 to -27.6%]; P < 0.001). The incidence of minor postoperative complications was not different between groups (42 vs. 58%; P = 0.330). Mean stroke volume index and cardiac index were both significantly higher in the computer-assisted group than in the manually adjusted goal-directed therapy group (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients having intermediate- to high-risk surgery, computer-assisted individualized hemodynamic management significantly reduces intraoperative hypotension compared to a manually controlled goal-directed approach., (Copyright © 2021, the American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)