Skip to main content

Table 4 Stratified analysis of the relationship between the use of different DoA monitors and the main means to assess DoA by the respondents and the occurrence of awareness

From: A survey of current practices, attitudes and demands of anaesthesiologists regarding the depth of anaesthesia monitoring in China

 

Have you experienced a case of awareness in the past?

Had a case of awareness

Did not have a case of awareness

Do not know

All respondents (N = 4037)

53.0% (51.5-54.6%)

36.0% (34.6-37.5%)

11.0% (10.0-11.9%)

Respondents who had used a DoA monitor (n = 3434)

51.5% (49.8-53.2%)

37.6% (36.0-39.2%)

10.9% (9.9-11.9%)

BIS (n = 3270)

51.6% (49.9-53.3%)

37.7% (36.0-39.4%)

10.7% (9.6-11.8%)

Entropy (n = 257)

50.2% (44.1-56.3%)

37.4% (31.5-43.3%)

12.5% (8.5-16.5%)

Narcotrend (n = 838)

50.5% (47.1-53.9%)

36.9% (33.6-40.2%)

12.6% (10.4-14.9%)

AEP (n = 154)

58.4% (50.6-66.2%)

34.4% (26.9-41.9%)

7.1% (3.0-11.2%)

CSI (n = 436)

50.5% (45.8-55.2%)

37.2% (32.7-41.7%)

12.4% (9.3-15.5%)

PSI (n = 116)

52.6% (43.5-61.7%)

32.8% (24.3-41.3%)

14.7% (8.3-21.1%)

Respondents who had never used a DoA monitor (n = 603)

61.7% (57.8-65.6%)

27.2% (23.7-30.8%)

11.1% (8.6-13.6%)

The main means to assess DoA

 Only vital signs (n = 408)

59.3% (54.5-64.1%)

31.4% (26.9-35.9%)

9.3% (6.5-12.1%)

 ETAC (n = 93)

45.2% (35.1-55.3%)

40.9% (30.9-50.9%)

14% (7.0-21.1%)

 DoA monitor (n = 876)

53.0% (49.7-56.3%)

39.4% (36.2-42.6%)

7.6% (5.9-9.4%)

 Dosage of anaesthetics and vital signs (n = 2660)

52.3% (50.4-54.2%)

35.5% (33.7-37.3%)

12.2% (11.0-13.4%)

  1. DoA Depth of anaesthesia, BIS Bispectral index, AEP Auditory evoked potentials, CSI Cerebral state index, PSI Patient state index, ETAC End-tidal anaesthetic concentration