Anesthetic Management in Perioperative Period–Volume II

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Anesthesiology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (23 February 2024) | Viewed by 2194

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
NHS Grampian, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK
Interests: perioperative medicine; anesthesiology; acute pain; chronic pain; pain management; inflammation; postoperative outcomes; opioids
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

There are a variety of options for anesthetic management during surgery, and these are constantly evolving. Along these lines, we produced a very successful first edition of a Special Issue entitled “Anesthetic Management in Perioperative Period” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcm/special_issues/anesthetic_perioperative_period).

We are now ready to open the second edition, which aims to cover both outstanding questions regarding the effects of new interventions and the identification of existing needs (in observational studies and secondary analyses).

We invite researchers in this field to submit descriptions of innovative techniques, including in exploratory and explanatory trials, as confirmatory studies, including pragmatic and implementation trials. In addition, we are keen to publish (network) meta-analyses that quantify the level of certainty about current knowledge. Both innovative and confirmatory research is important if the scientific community is to ambitiously develop and improve the quality of care. Authors could also develop methodological aspects in specific investigations, incorporating new analysis methods and trial designs. We are also open to study protocols.

Finally, observational studies also have an important role in documenting and quantifying, when appropriate, (specific) patients' needs. This may be important, especially in light of the expansion of concepts like personalized care, but also considering that the present level of evidence is insufficient to allow the successful implementation of interventions. This means that epidemiological studies, service evaluations, and quality improvement programs, when of high quality and performed with a clear purpose, do have a place in the scientific literature.

Prof. Dr. Patrice Forget
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • anesthesia
  • pain
  • postoperative outcomes

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

14 pages, 1727 KiB  
Article
Comparing Non-Invasive Spectrophotometry to Hematology Analysis for Hemoglobin Measurements in Sickle Cell Disease Patients
by Khaled Yassen, Nawal Omer, Fatimah Alsahaf, Fatima Al Amer, Fatimah Alhamad, Imran Alherz, Abdulaziz Bushehab, Fatma Alniniya and Maryam Alwabari
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(24), 7517; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12247517 - 05 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1038
Abstract
Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) require repeated blood sampling for hemoglobin (Hb) concentration measurements. The primary aim of this study was to compare non-invasive spectrophotometric hemoglobin (SpHb, g/dL) measurements to those taken via an automated hematology analyzer (Hb, g/dL) in patients with [...] Read more.
Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) require repeated blood sampling for hemoglobin (Hb) concentration measurements. The primary aim of this study was to compare non-invasive spectrophotometric hemoglobin (SpHb, g/dL) measurements to those taken via an automated hematology analyzer (Hb, g/dL) in patients with SCD visiting outpatient clinics and to investigate the correlations and agreements between both measurement techniques. Secondarily, we aimed to identify the SpHb cut-off concentration for the diagnosis of anemia and to monitor the effects of the pleth variability index (PVI, %) and perfusion index (PI) on SpHb measurements. The results gained from the examination of one hundred and fifty-eight patients indicated that the SpHb measurements overestimated the lab Hb concentrations, with a mean (SpHb-Hb) bias of 0.82 g/dL (SD 1.29). The SpHb measurements were positively correlated with the Hb measurements (Kendall’s tau correlation (τ), n = 158, τ = 0.68, p < 0.001), with an intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.67 and a 95% CI from 0.57 to 0.74 (p = 0.000). The SpHb cut-off concentration to diagnose anemia was 11.4 and 11.7 g/dL for males and females, respectively. SpHb sensitivity was low for males and females at 64.4% and 57.1%; however, the specificity was higher at 90.9% and 75%, with positive predictive values (PPVs) of 95.6 and 85.7, respectively. No correlation existed between SpHb measurements and the PVI (%) in contrast with a moderate correlation with the PI (r = 0.049, p = 0.54, and r = 0.36, p < 0.001, respectively). The mean PI was low at 2.52 ± 1.7. In conclusion, the SpHb measurements were consistently higher than the lab Hb concentrations, with a positive correlation. The sensitivity and precision of the SpHb measurements were lower than expected. However, the SpHb specificity and its positive predictive values (PPVs) indicated that it is less likely for a patient with a positive SpHb test result for anemia to be non-anemic. These results will allow SpHb measurement to play a role in excluding the presence of anemia. In light of the low PI values determined, the SpHb measurements were challenging to take and, thus, require further technological improvements. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anesthetic Management in Perioperative Period–Volume II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1885 KiB  
Article
Can Non-Invasive Spectrophotometric Hemoglobin Replace Laboratory Hemoglobin Concentrations for Preoperative Anemia Screening? A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study
by Maryam Alwabari, Fatimah Alhamad, Fatimah Alsahaf, Fatima Al Amer, Fatma Alniniya, Imran Alherz, Nawal Omer, Abdulaziz Bushehab and Khaled Yassen
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(17), 5733; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175733 - 03 Sep 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 956
Abstract
Preoperative assessment of hemoglobin concentration in blood is important to diagnose anemia. The primary aim of this prospective diagnostic test accuracy study was to monitor non-invasive spectrophotometric hemoglobin (SpHb, g/dL) concentrations among adults prior to elective surgery and to investigate the correlation and [...] Read more.
Preoperative assessment of hemoglobin concentration in blood is important to diagnose anemia. The primary aim of this prospective diagnostic test accuracy study was to monitor non-invasive spectrophotometric hemoglobin (SpHb, g/dL) concentrations among adults prior to elective surgery and to investigate the correlation and agreement of SpHb with laboratory hemoglobin (Hb, g/dl). A secondary aim was to identify the anemia cut-off values for SpHb based on the World Health Organization (WHO) definitions for anemia. This study included 151 consecutive patients (age ≥ 18 year) presenting for preoperative evaluation prior to scheduled elective general or orthopedic surgery. Results identified the mean ± SD of SpHb at 11.43 ± 2.01 g/dL, which underestimated the mean laboratory Hb (12.64 ± 2.29 g/dL, p < 0.001). A bias mean difference (SpHb–Hb) of −1.21 g/dL, with a SD of 1.76, was reported. This bias (SpHb–Hb) was inversely correlated with the mean Hb concentrations. A positive correlation existed between SpHb and Hb, with a good degree of reliability and a significant Intra Class Correlation (ICC). SpHb diagnosed anemia in 32.3% and 60.3% of males and females, respectively. The SpHb cut-off values to identify anemia were 11.3 and 10.2 g/dL for males and females, respectively, with a sensitivity of 83.3% for males and only 62.9% for females. The specificity for males and females were 81% and 91.3%, respectively. SpHb sensitivity allows for anemia diagnosis among males, but not females. However, the specificity allows SpHb to rule out anemia for both. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anesthetic Management in Perioperative Period–Volume II)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Back to TopTop