Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The bispectral index (BIS) monitor is the most frequently used electroencephalogram (EEG)-based depth of anesthesia (DoA) technology in Norwegian hospitals. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and clinical impact of its use and how anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists use the information provided by the DoA monitors in their clinical practice.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey on the use of DoA monitors in Norway used a web-based questionnaire distributed to anesthesia personnel in all hospitals in Norway. Participation was voluntary and anonymized, and the web form could not track IP sources or respondents\' locations.
RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-one nurse anesthetists (n = 324) and anesthesiologists (n = 67) responded. Among the EEG-based DoA monitoring tools, BIS was most often used to observe and assess patients\' DoA (98%). Raw EEG waveform analysis (10%), EEG-spectrogram (9%), and suppression rate (10%) were seldom used. Twenty-seven percent of the anesthesia personnel were able to recognize a burst suppression pattern on EEG and its significance. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents considered clinical observations more reliable than BIS. Almost all respondents reported adjusting anesthetic dosage based on the BIS index values (80%). However, the anesthetic dose was more often increased (90%) because of high BIS index values than lowered (55%) because of low BIS index values.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite our respondents\' extensive use of DoA monitoring, the anesthesia personnel in our survey did not use all the information and the potential to guide the titration of anesthetics the DoA monitors provide. Thus, anesthesia personnel could generally benefit from increased knowledge of how EEG-based DoA monitoring can be used to assess and determine individual patients\' need for anesthetic medication.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey on the use of DoA monitors in Norway used a web-based questionnaire distributed to anesthesia personnel in all hospitals in Norway. Participation was voluntary and anonymized, and the web form could not track IP sources or respondents\' locations.
RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-one nurse anesthetists (n = 324) and anesthesiologists (n = 67) responded. Among the EEG-based DoA monitoring tools, BIS was most often used to observe and assess patients\' DoA (98%). Raw EEG waveform analysis (10%), EEG-spectrogram (9%), and suppression rate (10%) were seldom used. Twenty-seven percent of the anesthesia personnel were able to recognize a burst suppression pattern on EEG and its significance. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents considered clinical observations more reliable than BIS. Almost all respondents reported adjusting anesthetic dosage based on the BIS index values (80%). However, the anesthetic dose was more often increased (90%) because of high BIS index values than lowered (55%) because of low BIS index values.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite our respondents\' extensive use of DoA monitoring, the anesthesia personnel in our survey did not use all the information and the potential to guide the titration of anesthetics the DoA monitors provide. Thus, anesthesia personnel could generally benefit from increased knowledge of how EEG-based DoA monitoring can be used to assess and determine individual patients\' need for anesthetic medication.
摘要：
背景：脑电双频指数（BIS）监测仪是挪威医院中最常用的基于脑电图（EEG）的麻醉深度（DoA）技术。然而,关于其使用的程度和临床影响以及麻醉师和护士麻醉师在临床实践中如何使用DoA监测仪提供的信息的知识有限。
方法：这项关于挪威使用DoA监测仪的横断面调查使用了基于网络的问卷，该问卷分发给挪威所有医院的麻醉人员。参与是自愿和匿名的，并且Web表单无法跟踪IP源或受访者的位置。
结果：三百九十一名护士麻醉师（n=324）和麻醉师（n=67）做出了回应。在基于EEG的DoA监测工具中，BIS最常用于观察和评估患者的DoA(98%)。原始脑电波形分析（10%），脑电图谱图（9%），很少使用抑制率（10％）。27％的麻醉人员能够识别EEG上的爆发抑制模式及其意义。58%的受访者认为临床观察比BIS更可靠。几乎所有受访者都报告根据BIS指数值（80％）调整麻醉剂量。然而,由于BIS指数值较高,麻醉剂量增加(90%)的频率高于由于BIS指数值较低(55%)的频率.
结论：尽管我们的受访者广泛使用DoA监控，我们调查中的麻醉人员没有使用DoA监测仪提供的所有信息和潜力来指导麻醉药的滴定.因此，麻醉人员通常可以受益于如何使用基于EEG的DoA监测来评估和确定个体患者对麻醉药物的需求。
方法：这项关于挪威使用DoA监测仪的横断面调查使用了基于网络的问卷，该问卷分发给挪威所有医院的麻醉人员。参与是自愿和匿名的，并且Web表单无法跟踪IP源或受访者的位置。
结果：三百九十一名护士麻醉师（n=324）和麻醉师（n=67）做出了回应。在基于EEG的DoA监测工具中，BIS最常用于观察和评估患者的DoA(98%)。原始脑电波形分析（10%），脑电图谱图（9%），很少使用抑制率（10％）。27％的麻醉人员能够识别EEG上的爆发抑制模式及其意义。58%的受访者认为临床观察比BIS更可靠。几乎所有受访者都报告根据BIS指数值（80％）调整麻醉剂量。然而,由于BIS指数值较高,麻醉剂量增加(90%)的频率高于由于BIS指数值较低(55%)的频率.
结论：尽管我们的受访者广泛使用DoA监控，我们调查中的麻醉人员没有使用DoA监测仪提供的所有信息和潜力来指导麻醉药的滴定.因此，麻醉人员通常可以受益于如何使用基于EEG的DoA监测来评估和确定个体患者对麻醉药物的需求。
