Skip to main content
Download PDF

Perception and practices of depth of anesthesia monitoring and intraoperative awareness event rate among Jordanian anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study

BMC Anesthesiology volume 22, Article number: 402 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Intraoperative awareness is the second most common complication of surgeries, and it negatively affects patients and healthcare professionals. Based on the limited previous studies, there is a wide variation in the incidence of intraoperative awareness and in the practices and attitudes toward depth of anesthesia (DoA) monitoring among healthcare systems and anesthesiologists. This study aimed to evaluate the Jordanian anesthesiologists’ practice and attitudes toward DoA monitoring and estimate the event rate of intraoperative awareness among the participating anesthesiologists.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional survey of Jordanian anesthesiologists working in public, private, and university hospitals was utilized using a questionnaire developed based on previous studies. Practice and attitude in using DoA monitors were evaluated. Anesthesiologists were asked to best estimate the number of anesthesia procedures and frequency of intraoperative awareness events in the year before. Percentages and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were reported and compared between groups using chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 107 anesthesiologists responded and completed the survey. About one-third of the respondents (34.6%; 95% CI 26.1–44.2) had never used a DoA monitor and only 6.5% (95% CI 3.1–13.2) reported using it as a “daily practice”. The use of a DoA monitor was associated with experience and type of health sector. However, 81.3% (95% CI 66.5–83.5) believed that currently available DoA monitors are effective for DoA monitoring and only 4.7% (95%CI 1.9–10.8) reported it as being “invalid”. Most respondents reported that the main purpose of using a DoA monitor was to prevent awareness (86.0%; 95%CI 77.9–91.4), guide the delivery of anesthetics (63.6%; 95%CI 53.9–72.2), and reduce recovery time (57%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1). The event rate of intraoperative awareness was estimated at 0.4% among participating anesthesiologists. Most Jordanian hospitals lacked policy intending to prevent intraoperative awareness.

Conclusions

Most anesthesiologists believed in the role of DoA monitors in preventing intraoperative awareness, however, their attitudes and knowledge are inadequate, and few use DoA monitors in routine practices. In Jordan, large efforts are needed to regulate the use of DoA monitoring and reduce the incidence of intraoperative awareness.

Peer Review reports

Background

Intraoperative awareness is a terrifying sequela of anesthetic procedures and is characterized as an unexpected recall of patient consciousness during surgical procedures occurring when general anesthesia is not maintained or achieved [1]. The incidence rate of intraoperative awareness was estimated between 1–2 for ervery1000 cases in general patients and 1/100 in high-risk patients [2,3,4]. This is considered clinically significant given millions of general anesthesia performed annually around the world and its negative effects on patients, healthcare providers, and hospitals. For example, more than 70% of patients who experienced intraoperative awareness reported suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [5]. Furthermore, intraoperative awareness is within the top three causes of legal actions taken against hospitals [1]. To improve healthcare quality and maintain patient safety, it is crucial to track intraoperative awareness and evaluate anesthesiologists’ practices and attitudes toward depth of anesthesia (DoA) monitoring.

Factors contributing to the occurrence of awareness incidents can be classified into patient conditions (i.e. history of cardiopulmonary diseases, alcohol use or smoking), [6] surgery characteristics (i.e. type and duration of surgery), and anesthesiologists’ practices on monitoring DoA [7,8,9,10,11]. Currently, two techniques are used to monitor the DoA, including observing clinical features such as heart rate, blood pressure, movement, sweating, and using an electroencephalogram (EEG) [1]. Monitoring clinical signs was seen to be insufficient in preventing intraoperative awareness [12]. Using new indexes of the EEG signal, such as bispectral index (BIS), were suggested to reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness [12,13,14,15]. However, other studies have failed to demonstrate the superiority of these monitors in preventing intraoperative awareness compared to clinical surveillance or end-tidal anesthesia concentration (ETAC) [16,17,18]. These findings may explain the variation in the practice and attitudes of anesthesiologists toward using DoA monitoring.

Few research studies assessed anesthesiologists’ practices and attitudes toward awareness and depth of anesthesia monitoring. In Australia, only 29% of anesthesiologists used DoA monitoring in more than one-third of cases, and 30% of anesthesiologists believed in the effectiveness of using a DoA monitor in preventing intraoperative awareness [19]. In China, only 9.1% of anesthesiologists routinely used DoA monitors, and 65% of respondents believed that DoA monitors should combine EEG and vital signs monitoring [20]. To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of studies evaluating the practice and perception of anesthesiologists in developing countries, including the Middle East region. The objective of this study was to investigate the perception, attitudes, and current practices of Jordanian anesthesiologists on DoA monitoring and estimate the event rate of intraoperative awareness among them.

Methods

Study design and setting

This study was a descriptive cross-sectional survey of Jordanian anesthesiologists working in public, private, and university hospitals in Jordan, between May and August 2022, using an electronic form created on Kobo toolbox website. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals were obtained from Hashemite University (IRB No:23/6/2021/2022). This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study participants

We included a convenient sample of anesthesiologists regardless of their degree of education, specialty (residents, specialists, and consultants), and workload. We used the formula of Kizito, 2016 to estimate a representative sample size (n = N/[1 + N*(e)^2], where N refers to the total population and e refers to the margin of error) [21]. While the total population of anesthesiologists was estimated at around 1,000 and by using the margin of error of 5%, the required sample size estimation was 285 anesthesiologists. The survey link was sent to a total of 300 anesthesiologists through emails and private mobiles obtained from the major public and private hospitals and universities in Jordan. Snowballing technique was also used by asking the anesthesiologists to forward our survey to other anesthesiologists. Participation in this study was voluntary and no re-identified data were collected for confidentiality.

Study survey and variables

The study survey was developed based on previous surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and China [1, 20]. The survey consisted of three main sections. Section one included 7 items (Table 1) for the demographic characteristics, covering age, gender, education, experience, and health sector. Section two included 24 items (Tables 2 and 3) concerning anesthesiologists’ practice and perception toward DoA monitoring and the use of a DoA monitor [20]. In section three, the rate and types of events of intraoperative awareness and their characteristics (Table 4) occurred in all anesthesia procedures during the year before (2021). We also asked whether their hospitals had policies for the prevention or management of intraoperative awareness. The types of the included questions and scales varied in this survey. The validity of the used survey was assessed previously using face validity, content validity, and construct validity. However, as a few changes had been made to the original surveys to comply with the local setting and healthcare system of Jordan, the face validity of our final survey was verified by five experienced anesthesiologists and researchers.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Full size table
Table 2 Perception of anesthesiologist toward the DoA monitor
Full size table
Table 3 Characteristics and differences in DoA monitoring practice between those who had a case of intraoperative awareness and those who did not
Full size table
Table 4 Characteristics of intraoperative awareness events
Full size table

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using STATA statistical package (STATA 16). A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. For descriptive statistics, continuous variables were presented as means and standard deviations (SDs) and were compared between study groups using a student t-test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), as appropriate. Whereas categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages and were compared between study groups using a chi-square test. We estimated the logit-transferred 95% confidence intervals for proportions. The rate of the intraoperative awareness events was estimated by dividing the total number of reported intraoperative awareness events for all participated anesthesiologists in 2021 by the total number of anesthesia procedures they performed during the same year.

Results

A total of 107 physicians participated and completed the survey with a response rate of 35.7%. The mean age was 34.1 (SD ± 8.1) and 85.1% were male. Most of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree (57.9%) and were residents (59.8%). Among the respondents, about one-third of the participant (34.6%; 95%CI 26.1–44.2) had never used a DoA monitor. Similarly, a total of 29.9% (95%CI 21.9–39.3) of our sample were unfamiliar with DoA monitors. Of all respondents, a percentage of 53.3% (95% CI 43.7–62.6) had reported at least one event of intraoperative awareness during 2021, while 36.5% (95% CI 27.8–46.1) had not reported any event of intraoperative awareness, and 10.3 (95% CI 5.7–17.7) did not know if they had any event of intraoperative awareness.

Table 1 shows the difference in the demographic characteristics between those who had used and had never used a DoA monitor. The frequency of using a DoA monitor significantly differed by education level, specialty category, health sector, and experience in years.

Table 2 presents the perception of the respondents toward DoA monitors on their familiarity with the DoA monitors. Most of the respondents (81.3%; 95%CI.66.5–83.5) believed that currently available DoA monitors are effective for DoA monitoring, and only 4.7% (95%CI 1.9–10.8) of the respondents thought that they were invalid (Table 2). Respondents who were familiar with DoA monitors were more likely to believe that currently, available DoA monitors are effective, compared to those who were unfamiliar with DoA monitors (93.3% vs 53.2%; p < 0.001, respectively). Accuracy (31.8%; 95%CI 23.6–41.3) and stability (30.8%; 95%CI 22.7–40.3) were the most reported values of using a DoA monitor. Most respondents believed that the main purposes of using a DoA monitor were to prevent awareness (86.0%; 95%CI 77.9–91.4), guide the delivery of anesthetics (63.6%; 95%CI 53.9–72.2), and reduce recovery time (57%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1). More than half of the respondents believed that the anesthesia methods that are suitable for DoA monitoring are general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation (71%; 95%CI 61.6–78.9), followed by all general anesthesia (63.6%; 95%CI 53.9–72.2). Additionally, regarding the population for which DoA monitoring is applicable, approximately 65.7% (95%CI 55.8–73.9) of the respondents reported that old and adult patients are most in need of DoA monitoring. Surprisingly, compared to those who were unfamiliar with DoA monitors, those who were familiar with DoA monitors were less likely to report that elderly patients are most in need of DoA monitoring (p = 0.025) (Table 2).

In daily clinical practice, a percentage of 72.0% (95%CI 62.6–79.7) of the respondents assessed DoA based on the dosage of anesthetics and vital signs. While only 10.3% (95%CI 5.7–17.7) used a DoA monitor, 11.2% (95%CI 6.4–18.8) used only vital signs, and 6.5% (95%CI 3.1–13.2%) used ETAC. A total of 78.5% (95%CI 69.6–85.3) were satisfied with the DoA achieved in clinical practice and 21.5% (95%CI 14.7–30.4) were dissatisfied. In addition, 90.7% (95%CI 83.5–95.4) agreed that inhaled anesthetics are useful in preventing intraoperative awareness.

Many crucial factors influenced the use of DoA monitors. Inability to bill insurance or high cost (57.0%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1) was the main influencing factor, followed by limited accuracy (30.8%; 95%CI 22.7–40.3), limited sensitivity (29.9%; 95%CI 21.9–39.3), and inability to monitor analgesia (29.9%; 95%CI 21.9–39.3). Furthermore, most of the respondents (85.1%; 95%CI 76.9–91.2) agreed that DoA monitors can prevent awareness, and only 6.5% (95%CI 3.1–13.2) disagreed with this statement. Moreover, 53.3% (95%CI 43.7–62.6) of the respondents considered DoA monitoring more effective than ETAC in preventing awareness, 18.7% (95%CI 12.3–27.3) thought there was no difference, and 8.4% (95%CI 4.4–15.5) considered that DoA monitoring was inferior to ETAC monitoring.

About half of the respondents (50.5%; 95%CI 40.6–60.3) agreed that prolonged low DoA readings (< 40) are associated with adverse outcomes. Additionally, most of the respondents (64.5%; 95%CI 54.6–73.5) agreed to deliver fewer anesthetics with prolonged lower DoA readings (≤ 35). In comparison, 61.7% (95%CI 51.8–70.9) of the respondents agreed to increase anesthetic delivery with prolonged elevated DoA readings (≥ 65). A percentage of 86.0% (95%CI 77.9–91.4) reported that DoA monitoring could reduce the use of anesthetics. A substantial proportion of the respondents (91.6%; 95%CI 84.6–96.1) agreed that DoA monitoring should be mandatory during total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with muscle relaxants. In comparison, 85.0% (95%CI 76.9–91.2) of the respondents agreed that DoA monitoring should be mandatory during TIVA without muscle relaxants.

Table 3 shows the current practice of using a DoA monitor and the comparison between those who had a case of intraoperative awareness and those who had not. The most frequently used DoA monitors by our respondents were the BIS monitor (56.1%; 95%CI 46.5–65.3), auditory evoked potential (AEP) (13.1%; 95%CI 7.9–21.0), and patient state index (PSI) (8.4%; 95%CI 4.4–15.5). Compared to those who never had a case of awareness, those who had a case of awareness were more likely to use an AEP monitor (Table 3). Most of the respondents (66.4%; 95%CI 56.8–74.7) believed that the BIS monitor is the most accurate instrument available, followed by the AEP (13.1%; 95%CI 7.9–21.0). Slightly more than half of the respondents (52.3%; 95%CI 42.8–61.7) believed that number, EEG trace, and burst suppression ratio are equally important indicators of the DoA monitors. This did not differ between those who had and had not a case of awareness. In individual practice, DoA monitoring was routinely used by only 6.5% (95%CI 3.1–13.2) of the respondents; it was used in more than one-third of cases by 12.2% (95%CI 7.1–19.9), in less than one-third of cases by 67.3% (95%CI 57.8- 75.6), and never by 14.0% (95%CI 8.6–22.1). This proportion did not differ between those who had and had not a case of awareness (Table 3).

Based on the current DoA monitors used, the respondents believed that the DoA monitoring functions that required further improvement were as follows: accuracy (76.6%; 95%CI 67.6–83.8), suitability for patients of all ages (64.5%; 95%CI 54.9–73.0), all anesthetics (61.0%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1), and analgesia (41.1%; 95%CI 32.-50.8). Almost 40% thought that DoA monitors should be simple and combine EEG and vital sign monitoring. However, less than 20% of the respondents (18.7%; 95%CI 12.3–27.3) believed that advanced DoA monitors should have the strong anti-interference ability and use artificial intelligence (41.1%; 95%CI 32.-50.8). Regarding the application of DoA monitoring and whether DoA monitoring has become as crucial as electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring in clinical practice, 51.4% (95%CI 41.9–60.8) of the respondents reported a significant difference between the importance of DoA monitoring and that of ECG monitoring.

During 2021, the total number of anesthesia procedures performed under the care of all respondents was 57,833. During 2021, the total number of new instances of accidental awareness during anesthesia that all respondents dealt with was 227 events. Thus, the event rate among our respondents was 0.4% (95%CI 0.34–0.45) which corresponds to 4 intraoperative awareness events for every 1000 procedures. A percentage of 57.5% (95%CI 50.8–64.1) of respondents reported that they faced a case of awareness during surgery. However, less than 20% (17.7%; 95%CI 13–23.3) had exposed to physical or psychological hurt. Based on the characteristics of intraoperative awareness, it was found that more than one-third of respondents (37.6%; 95%CI 31.3- 44.3) stated that awareness events were ascertained only on questioning and only 4.9% (95%CI 2.5–8.5) reported that these events resulted on a formal complaint to hospitals (Table 4).

Discussion

This survey intended to provide insights into the perception and practice of Jordanian anesthesiologists toward using DoA monitors and estimate the event rate of intraoperative awareness among them. Our results show that although most of the Jordanian anesthesiologists believed that currently, available DoA monitors are effective for DoA monitoring, one-third of them had never used and were unfamiliar with DoA monitors. We found that a higher frequency of using a DoA monitor was associated with a higher education and specialty level, longer experience, and being working for the private sector. In addition, the rate of intraoperative awareness was estimated as four cases for every 1000 anesthesia procedures among anesthesiologists. However, most involved hospitals had no policies to regulate DoA monitor and prevent intraoperative awareness.

Our results are the first to support the need for further investment in DoA monitoring advocacy in developing countries setting where resources are scarce and technology implementation is a barrier to ensuring patient safety practices. The percentage of respondents who routinely used DoA monitors in Jordan (6.5%) was lower than those in China (9.1%), the UK (22.0%), [22] and Australia (53.0%) [23]. One possible explanation is that the availability of DoA monitors is limited in the anesthesia departments in Jordan, particularly in the public hospitals where a higher percentage of anesthesiologists had never used a DoA monitor. This may further be coupled with the limitations in health care insurance policies in Jordan that may not involve DoA monitors as their use is not mandatory by most guidelines and the inability to ensure the cost-effectiveness of DoA monitors [24]. This is evident by our results that the most crucial factor that influenced the use of DoA monitors was the inability to bill or high cost. This can also explain why most Jordanian anesthesiologists assessed DoA using the dosage of anesthetics and vital signs.

Other crucial factors affecting the use of DoA monitors by Jordanian anesthesiologists were limited accuracy, limited sensitivity, and inability to monitor analgesia. These factors were also reported by the Chinese anesthesiologists, (ref) Although most of our respondents (> 80%) found DoA monitors are effective in preventing intraoperative awareness, only one-third of the respondents found DoA monitors accurate or sensitive. In addition, three-fourths of the respondents believed that the accuracy of DoA monitors required further improvement. This may be reflective of the limitations of the available DoA monitors.

Our results indicate that the suitability of DoA monitors for patients of all ages is the second crucial demand reported. More than half of our respondents reported that DoA monitoring was suitable for elderly and adult patients but only 30% reported the suitability of DoA monitors for young children and infants. This finding might be relevant given the limitations of the available DoA monitors when applied to pediatric patients [25]. Several age-related changes factors can influence the readings the DoA monitors in children who frequently have burst-suppressed and discontinuous electroencephalography activity during anesthesia [26]. However, there are DoA monitors that perform well in children, but anesthesiologists should be trained on the specific device applied with its own technology, to make the right interpretation and action.

In addition to the prevention of intraoperative awareness, most respondents believed that the primary purposes of using DoA monitors were to the guide delivery of anesthesia and reduce recovery time. These results are supported by Chinese and Australian studies [19, 20, 23]. Furthermore, many respondents agreed that depth of DoA monitoring should be mandatory during TIVA with and without muscle relaxants. Similar findings were reported in a Chines study [20]. This is in line with the current guidelines that recommend DoA monitoring when using TIVA with neuromuscular blockade whereas it should be considered when TIVA is used alone [19, 20, 22,23,24, 27,28,29].

Regarding the usage of DoA monitors, most of our respondents reported that the BIS was the most accurate and frequently used DoA monitor. Similar findings were reported by most anesthesiologists in China, Australia, and Europe [19, 20, 27]. This consistency between countries corresponds with several studies that have documented the superiority of BIS to reduce intraoperative awareness, general anesthetic consumption, and anesthetic recovery times among other types of DoA monitors [28, 29]. However, most anesthesiologists thought that all DoA monitors have limited accuracy and suitability for all anesthetic agents and analgesia. These limitations have been noticeably resolved by using deep learning algorithms that combine EEG signals and multiple vital signs and other exogenous information [30, 31].

The event rate of intraoperative awareness among Jordanian anesthesiologists was relatively high (4/1000 cases) compared to the international context (1–2/1000) [2,3,4, 19]. The findings of the current study may explain the higher rate of intraoperative awareness events in Jordan. These include the underuse of DoA monitoring, limited knowledge and practices among anesthesiologists, and unavailability of policies aiming to minimize or prevent awareness incidents. However, a more relevant study design is needed to accurately estimate the incidence rate of intraoperative awareness in Jordan.

This study generated several recommendations that should be taken in consideration. These are mainly related to enhancing the anesthesiologist’s practice, knowledge, and attitudes toward intraoperative awareness and DoA monitors. It may be helpful to conduct relevant continuing education and training sessions about the importance and variability of current DoA monitors. We also recommend all hospitals in Jordan adopt new advanced and applicable DoA monitors as routine practice using artificial intelligence. Moreover, healthcare managers and policymakers should focus on managing factors associated with the limited use of DoA monitors and the high rate of intraoperative awareness. All hospitals should consider policies to regulate the use of DoA monitors and prevent intraoperative awareness.

Limitations

There are several limitations should be considered during the interpretation of our findings. First, the sample size is relatively small and might not be representative. Still, healthcare-related studies usually have such issues. However, our results could be a pilot assessment to investigate a critical healthcare-related practice within a subspecialty. Second, the current study used a convenience sampling method to select participants. A more robust sampling method such as random or cluster sampling might be me necessary to draw a representative sample. Third, this was a self-reported survey and was subjected to reporting bias. Finally, the survey was adapted from studies conducted in developed countries that may not necessarily be applicable to the developing healthcare system in Jordan.

Conclusion

The estimated event rate of intraoperative awareness in Jordan seems to be high compared with previous international statistics. This is likely due to multiple factors such as the underuse of DoA monitors, inadequate perception and limited knowledge of anesthesiologists, and lack of policies and guidelines concerning the prevention of intraoperative awareness and use of DoA monitors. Large efforts are needed to enhance the perception of anesthesiologists and their practice toward the use of DoA monitors in daily practice. Moreover, healthcare administrators and policymakers should adopt policies and guidelines to prevent intraoperative awareness and regulate the use of DoA monitors. These interventions may eventually reflect positively on patient safety and the quality of healthcare.

Availability of data and materials

Data will be available upon reasonable request from corresponding author.

Abbreviations

DoA:

Depth of anesthesia

PTSD:

Post-traumatic stress disorder

EEG:

Electroencephalogram

BIS:

Bispectral index

ETAC:

End-tidal anesthesia concentration

IRB:

Institutional review board

SD:

Standard deviation

PSI:

Patient state index

AEP:

Auditory evoked potential

CSI:

Cerebral state index

TIVA:

Total intravenous anesthesia

References

  1. Pandit J, Andrade J, Bogod D, Hitchman J, Jonker W, Lucas N, et al. 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(4):549–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sandin RH, Enlund G, Samuelsson P, Lennmarken C. Awareness during anaesthesia: a prospective case study. Lancet. 2000;355(9205):707–11.

  3. Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, Rampil IJ, Padilla RE, Gan TJ, et al. The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(3):833–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Xu L, Wu AS, Yue Y. The incidence of intra-operative awareness during general anesthesia in China: a multi-center observational study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(7):873–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leslie K, Chan MT, Myles PS, Forbes A, McCulloch TJ. Posttraumatic stress disorder in aware patients from the B-aware trial. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(3):823–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Avidan MS, Mashour GA. Prevention of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall: making sense of the evidence. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(2):449–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Almeida D. Awake and unable to move: what can perioperative practitioners do to avoid accidental awareness under general anaesthesia? J Perioper Pract. 2015;25(12):257–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bombardieri AM, Mathur S, Soares A, Sharma A, Abdallah AB, Wildes TS, et al. Intraoperative awareness with recall: A descriptive, survey-based, cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(5):1291–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghoneim MM, Block RI, Haffarnan M, Mathews MJ. Awareness during anesthesia: risk factors, causes and sequelae: a review of reported cases in the literature. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(2):527–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Groesdonk HV, Pietzner J, Borger MA, Fassl J, Haentschel D, Paarmann H, et al. The incidence of intraoperative awareness in cardiac surgery fast-track treatment. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24(5):785–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mashour GA, Orser BA, Avidan MS, Warner DS. Intraoperative awareness: from neurobiology to clinical practice. J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2011;114(5):1218–33.

  12. Punjasawadwong Y, Phongchiewboon A, Bunchungmongkol N. Bispectral index for improving anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery. Cochrane database of Syst Rev. 2014(6):1–96.

  13. Li X, Cui S, Voss LJ. Using permutation entropy to measure the electroencephalographic effects of sevoflurane. J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2008;109(3):448–56.

  14. Kent CD, Domino KB. Depth of anesthesia. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2009;22(6):782–7.

  15. Myles PS, Leslie K, McNeil J, Forbes A, Chan MT. Bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness during anaesthesia: the B-Aware randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9423):1757–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Avidan MS, Zhang L, Burnside BA, Finkel KJ, Searleman AC, Selvidge JA, et al. Anesthesia awareness and the bispectral index. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(11):1097–108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mashour GA, Shanks A, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, Turner CR, Ramachandran SK, et al. Prevention of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall in an unselected surgical population: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. J Ame Soc Anesthesiol. 2012;117(4):717–25.

  18. Mashour G, Avidan M. Intraoperative awareness: controversies and non-controversies. Brit Jo Anaesth. 2015;115(suppl_1):i20–6.

  19. Ben-Menachem E, Zalcberg D. Depth of anesthesia monitoring: a survey of attitudes and usage patterns among Australian anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(5):1180–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhan J, Yi T-T, Wu Z-X, Long Z-H, Bao X-H, Xiao X-D, et al. A survey of current practices, attitudes and demands of anaesthesiologists regarding the depth of anaesthesia monitoring in China. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kizito D. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of medical incident reporting among healthcare professionals: A study of Midigo healthcare IV. Int J Med. 2016;4(2):1–20.

  22. Lau K, Matta B, Menon D, Absalom A. Attitudes of anaesthetists to awareness and depth of anaesthesia monitoring in the UK. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23(11):921–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Myles P, Symons J, Leslie K. Anaesthetists’ attitudes towards awareness and depth-of-anaesthesia monitoring. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(1):11–6.

  24. Klein AA, Meek T, Allcock E, Cook TM, Mincher N, Morris C, et al. Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2021. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(9):1212–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grasso C, Marchesini V, Disma N. Applications and Limitations of Neuro-Monitoring in Paediatric Anaesthesia and Intravenous Anaesthesia: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(12):2639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Agrawal U, Berde CB, Cornelissen L. Electroencephalographic features of discontinuous activity in anesthetized infants and children. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10):e0223324.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheung YM, Scoones G, Stolker RJ, Weber F. Use, applicability and reliability of depth of hypnosis monitors in children-a survey among members of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shepherd J, Jones J, Frampton G, Bryant J, Baxter L, Cooper K. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of depth of anaesthesia monitoring (E-Entropy, Bispectral Index and Narcotrend): a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(34):1–264.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gao W-w, He Y-h, Liu L, Yuan Q, Wang Y-f, Zhao B. BIS monitoring on intraoperative awareness: a meta-analysis. Curr Med Sci. 2018;38(2):349–53.

  30. Sadrawi M, Fan S-Z, Abbod MF, Jen K-K, Shieh J-S. Computational Depth of Anesthesia via Multiple Vital Signs Based on Artificial Neural Networks. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:536863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roy Chowdhury M, Madanu R, Abbod MF, Fan S-Z, Shieh J-S. Deep learning via ECG and PPG signals for prediction of depth of anesthesia. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2021;68:102663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Urology and Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, 13115, Jordan

    Sager Nawafleh & Morad Bani-Hani

  2. Department of Allied Medical Science, Faculty of Applied Medical Science, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, 22110, Jordan

    Ahmad Alrawashdeh

  3. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan

    Omar Ababneh

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid, 21110, Jordan

    Zaid Al Modanat

  5. Department of Anesthesia and Recovery, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, 21110, Jordan

    Diab Bani Hani, Adel Bataineh & Omer Yasser

  6. Anesthesia Department, Istiklal Hospital, Amman, Jordan

    Faisal Al-Salameh

  7. Department of Research and Data Analytics, Kernel Center, Irbid, 21110, Jordan

    Sajeda Abuzaid

  8. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, 22110, Jordan

    Khaled Khairallah

Authors
  1. Sager Nawafleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmad Alrawashdeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omar Ababneh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Morad Bani-Hani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zaid Al Modanat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Diab Bani Hani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Adel Bataineh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Faisal Al-Salameh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sajeda Abuzaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Omer Yasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Khaled Khairallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SN, perceived the idea and collected the data, SN, AA, and SA developed the study design and protocol and wrote the manuscript; AA analyzed the data. OA, MB, ZM, DH, AB, FA, KK, and OY reviewed the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Alrawashdeh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals were obtained from Hashemite University (IRB No:23/6/2021/2022). And the informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nawafleh, S., Alrawashdeh, A., Ababneh, O. et al. Perception and practices of depth of anesthesia monitoring and intraoperative awareness event rate among Jordanian anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 402 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01941-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01941-w

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us