Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
We thank Ariès et al1 for their interest in our recent article.2 We stated in our Discussion, “wireless technology in the critical care setting is generally safe and reliable.”2 Our point was that if implementing a wired solution is practicable, then this is preferable, given that there are sources of interference that may be difficult to identify and impossible to avoid completely. We mentioned several sources of potential interference in our discussion: “cordless phones, Wi-Fi adapters, wireless baby monitors,”2 but this list was not intended to be comprehensive. Certainly, there are many other sources of electromagnetic interference in the Bluetooth bandwidth; this only serves to reinforce our conclusion.
We agree with the editorial by Hofer and Cannesson3 that additional research is needed to better understand the risks and benefits of wireless monitoring.
Allan F. Simpao, MDJorge A. Gálvez, MDPerelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvaniasimpaoa@email.chop.edu
W. Randall England, BAElicia C. Wartman, BAJames H. Scott, CNAMichael M. Hamid, Sr, CEThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
Mohamed A. Rehman, MDPerelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
Richard H. Epstein, MDMiller School of MedicineThe University of MiamiMiami, Florida
1. Ariès P, Reynet O, Clément B, Nguyen BV. Another stone to the edifice of wireless anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:1061–1063.
2. Simpao AF, Gálvez JA, England WR, et al. A technical evaluation of wireless connectivity from patient monitors to an anesthesia information management system during intensive care unit surgery. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:425429.
3. Hofer I, Cannesson M. Is wireless the future of monitoring? Anesth Analg. 2016;122:305306.