The Perceived Effectiveness of These Monitors Among Australian Anesthesiologists
Attitudes Toward DoA Monitoring
The majority (>50%, P < 0.0001) of respondents considered DoA monitoring useful for the prevention of awareness with 66% (61%–72%), either agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement, while 25% (20%–30%) did not know and only 9% (6%–13%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. Covariates, including experience, geographical or practice location, gender, hours of clinical work, and a previous case of awareness, were not statistically significant (all P > 0.14). Compared with ETAC, DoA monitoring was thought to be more effective by 30% of respondents (25%–35%), as effective by 36% (31%–42%), and less effective by 34% (29%–40%) at preventing awareness, and perception of the usefulness of DoA monitoring was the only covariate with statistical significance (P < 0.001, χ2 test). If DoA monitoring did not offer any medicolegal protection in a case of awareness, most would still use it (>50%, P < 0.0001). Whether or not there was an association between prolonged low DoA readings (<40) and adverse outcomes is presented in Table 2. Practitioners of >20 years compared with <5 years tended to strongly disagree or disagree (31% vs 10%) with the association between low DoA readings and adverse outcomes, while the opposite was true when agreeing/strongly agreeing (23% vs 55%, P = 0.011, χ2 test).
Use of DoA Monitoring
In individual practice, DoA monitoring was used in less than one-third of cases by 66% of respondents, and 20% used it in more than one-third of cases (Table 2). The respondents with the highest usage correlated with those who agreed most strongly that DoA monitoring was useful for the prevention of awareness (P < 0.0001, Pearson correlation 0.32), and bivariate analysis showed proportional use of DoA monitoring to be heavily influenced by belief in its usefulness in the prevention of awareness (P < 0.0001). Usage was not influenced by years of experience or by whether the respondent reported having a case of awareness (all P > 0.40). The influence of the DoA monitor on titration of anesthetic during a muscle relaxant GA case, when the patient’s hemodynamics and delivered anesthetic are in the target range, is presented in Table 3, with elevated readings being highly influential. A majority of respondents (62%; 56%–67%) felt DoA monitoring enabled delivery of less anesthetic, while 19% (15%–24%) did not know and 19% (15%–24%) disagreed. The primary benefit of reduced anesthetic delivery was thought to be faster emergence (34%), followed by less postoperative morbidity (30%) and intraoperative hemodynamic stability (26%). Cost and greenhouse gas effects were not viewed as significant factors.
Australian Anesthesiologists’ Use of DoA Monitors in the Prevention of Intraoperative Awareness
Indications for DoA Monitoring
Regardless of personal case mix, 5% (3%–8%) of respondents thought DoA monitoring was indicated in all cases under GA. Overall, 29% (24%–34%) thought it was indicated in all relaxant GA cases. Those respondents who thought DoA monitoring was useful in the prevention of awareness were more likely to think it was indicated in all relaxant GA cases (P = 0.004), while respondents practicing >20 years were significantly more likely to think it was indicated than those practicing <20 years (39% vs 23%, P = 0.01). A large proportion of respondents thought DoA monitoring was indicated for cardiac surgery (53%, 47%–58%). A significant majority thought it was indicated for GA cesarean delivery (59%; 53%–65%), major trauma (59%; 53%–65%), total IV anesthesia (TIVA) (78%; 72%–82%), and a previous episode of awareness (87%; 82%–90%). In free text comments, multiple respondents included the elderly and illicit-drug and opioid users as additional indications. In regard to TIVA with muscle relaxation, a majority of respondents (74%; 69%–79%) either agreed or strongly agreed with DoA monitoring being mandatory, and this was strongly correlated with the belief that such monitoring was useful for the prevention of awareness (P < 0.0001, Pearson correlation 0.36). However, during TIVA without muscle relaxation, only 40% (34%–46%) either agreed or strongly agreed with DoA monitoring being mandatory.
Attitudes Toward Awareness
Thirty percent of respondents reported having a case of awareness in their practice. Those in practice >20 years were twice as likely to have had a case of awareness as those in practice <20 years (51% vs 24%, P < 0.001). When rating the seriousness of the problem of awareness (0–10 scale), the median (interquartile range) rating was 4 (2–7). Those reporting having had a case of awareness had a higher mean rating compared with those who had not had a case of awareness (4.99 vs 4.24, P < 0.029). Respondents in this survey rated awareness as more of a problem than respondents in a 2006 UK survey using the same question and rating scale (mean rating 4.46 vs 3.65, P < 0.0001).16
When reading the output from the monitor, 37% of respondents found the number most useful, 14% found the trace most useful, and 48% found both equally important. Respondents practicing >20 years were more likely than those practicing <5 years to find the number useful (49% vs 20%), while the reverse was true for both the number and trace being equally important (39% vs 63%, P = 0.028).
DoA monitoring is almost universally accessible (92%–99%) throughout anesthetizing locations in Australia, with high penetration in all locations apart from day surgery centers (61%), where presumably the majority of patients are at low risk for awareness and are undergoing minimally invasive, short-duration procedures.
Perceived Effectiveness Driving High Utilization in Australia
A relatively high rate of respondents (29%) would use DoA monitoring for all relaxant anesthetic cases, and about one-third of respondents felt DoA monitoring was superior to ETAC monitoring, despite evidence that there is no benefit over ETAC monitoring with alerts.19 Furthermore, a majority believe DoA monitoring is useful for the prevention of awareness. Most anesthesiologists use DoA monitoring to some degree in their practice, with only a small minority never using it. The majority uses it in less than one-third of cases, but nearly 30% use it in more than one-third of cases. This is in clear contrast to the findings of the UK 5th National Audit Project baseline survey that found 25% of anesthesiologists using DoA monitoring in selected cases only with 1.8% using it routinely,20 suggesting higher use and acceptance by Australian anesthesiologists. Usage was strongly influenced by belief in the usefulness of DoA monitoring in the prevention of awareness, while no other covariates were found to significantly influence use.
In view of the lack of evidence of benefit for prevention of awareness over and above ETAC monitoring, possible explanations may include that the increasing presence and perceived low risk of using DoA monitoring are decreasing the threshold for its use. The ubiquitous presence of DoA devices (most are now integrated into modern anesthetic monitors) may now be encouraging increasing use. Alternatively, while use appears to be driven primarily by a desire to prevent awareness, it may increasingly be used as a guide for titration of delivered anesthetic either to improve recovery or reduce complications. Our survey results support this notion given that a majority of respondents (62%) felt that DoA monitoring enables delivery of less anesthetic, with major benefits thought to include faster emergence, less morbidity, and improved hemodynamic stability. Again, this practice is in contrast to some of the current evidence provided by large trials. The B-Unaware trial compared BIS with ETAC monitoring and found no reduction in the use of volatile anesthetics in the BIS-guided arm of the study,9 with similar findings in several large studies,8,21 and a recent review of the role of DoA monitoring as a means of awareness prevention or to reduce anesthetic usage did not support the use of BIS.22 Additionally, the BAG-RECALL study did not show BIS was superior to ETAC monitoring in the prevention of awareness.21
Interestingly, the survey results suggest a disconnect between the evidence base and clinical practice patterns. Behavior of clinicians does not always reflect their knowledge of the evidence, and Australian usage of DoA monitors appears to be another example of this. Similar findings have been found with regard to antagonization of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drugs where practice reflected heuristic decision making and qualitative judgments.23 Another survey about “best practice” and actual management of perioperative peripheral IV catheters showed that what providers think is best practice is not what is actually being done.24 Illumination of the disparity between evidence and practice may encourage all clinicians to reflect on their own behaviors and guide research into how evidence filters into clinical practice.
How Do Australian Anesthesiologists Use Candidate DoA Monitors?
Certain indications for EEG DoA monitoring were identified by a significant majority (>70%) of respondents, namely, TIVA or a previous case of awareness, while an approximate majority thought it was indicated for major trauma or GA cesarean delivery. Indications were typically viewed as being high risk for awareness. Furthermore, although a majority believe DoA monitoring can reduce anesthetic usage, when posed with an anesthetic scenario, respondents are twice as likely to respond to an elevated than a suppressed DoA reading. Despite the accumulating evidence of adverse outcomes associated with deep anesthesia prompting the ongoing BALANCED anesthesia trial,25 considerable confusion remains among clinical anesthesiologists, with one-third disagreeing with the association and another third not knowing about it. Overall, this suggests “awareness prevention” is the main driver of use rather than “recovery enhancement.”
The number of respondents with a case of awareness (30%) was similar to a previous UK survey conducted in 2006 (33%)16 and was more likely among those in practice for longer (>20 years), supporting the validity of our survey. However, in a 2003 Australian survey, 52% reported having experienced a patient with awareness.15 While this change may be artifactual, it may also be the result of an increased appreciation of awareness, greater vigilance among anesthesiologists, and greater use of DoA monitors. In the intervening period, considerable research has been conducted, and DoA monitors have become widely accessible.
Differences in attitudes were noted between more (>20 years) and less (<5 years) experienced anesthesiologists. Those practicing >20 years were less likely to agree with the association between low DoA monitor values and adverse outcomes and valued the monitor number above the number and EEG trace combined. This may have resulted from the greater passage of time between training and practice, less exposure to the latest research, and less familiarity with modern monitors that display EEG waveforms. Interestingly, there was no difference in the attitudes toward the effectiveness of DoA monitoring or the frequency of DoA usage when comparing those with more than 20 years’ experience and less than 5 years’ experience.
There are some limitations to our findings. The sample size was limited (289 respondents from 963 surveyed anesthesiologists), with a response rate of 30% (resulting in a sample of 8% of all anesthesiologists in Australia), and although this rate is a typical response rate for an online survey,17 it introduces the possibility of nonresponse bias, because it may select for respondents with strong attitudes toward this subject and limit generalizability. However, the responders’ representativeness of the population may be more important than response rate.26,27 All demographic variables closely reflect the membership of ANZCA, including geographical distribution, gender, and years of experience, and are similar to a previous survey conducted specifically on awareness in Australia, supporting the representativeness of our survey.15 Furthermore, the survey only reflects Australian practice and cannot be generalized to other regions given international variations.
With the increased availability of these monitors, the clinical utility needs to be carefully considered. It appears that education about these monitors may be lagging behind current evidence. Our study reveals 3 disconnects between the available evidence and practice patterns. First, DoA monitors are beneficial for preventing awareness when TIVA is used, yet usage is far from universal for this indication. Second, these monitors do not reduce awareness when ETAC monitoring with an alerting system is used, yet many practitioners believe otherwise. Last, DoA monitors have not been shown to decrease overall anesthetic use in contrast to the opinions of a sizeable proportion of respondents. Our survey documents wide variation in use and attitudes to DoA monitors. The results of this study challenge anesthesiologists, both on the individual level and as a collective, to better define the appropriate clinical role of these monitors.
Name: Erez Ben-Menachem, MBChB, FCICM, FANZCA.
Contribution: This author helped in study design, conduct of the study, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.
Attestation: Erez Ben-Menachem approved the final manuscript, attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript, and is the archival author.
Name: Dave Zalcberg, MBBS.
Contribution: This author helped in study design, conduct of the study, data collection, and manuscript preparation.
Attestation: Dave Zalcberg approved the final manuscript and attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript.
This manuscript was handled by: Franklin Dexter, MD, PhD.
The authors acknowledge and thank Dr. Kathy Petoumenos for advice on statistical analyses and the ANZCA Trials Group for supporting and facilitating this survey.
a Medical Training Review Panel: sixteenth report. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/work-pubs-mtrp-16. Accessed October 4, 2013.
1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE Diagnostics Guidance: Depth of Anaesthesia Monitors—Bispectral index (BIS), E-Entropy and Narcotrend Compact M. November 2012. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/dg6
. Accessed June 5, 2013
2. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. . Practice advisory for intraoperative awareness and brain function monitoring: a report by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:847–64
3. Jones JG. Awareness during anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:773–4
4. Pandit JJ, Cook TM. National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on measuring depth of anaesthesia: limitations of EEG-based technology. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:325–8
6. Sandin RH, Enlund G, Samuelsson P, Lennmarken C. Awareness during anesthesia. A prospective case study. Lancet. 2000;92:597–602
7. Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, Rampil IJ, Padilla RE, Gan TJ, Domino KB. The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:833–9
8. 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;363:1757–63
9. Avidan MS, Zhang L, Burnside BA, Finkel KJ, Searleman AC, Selvidge JA, Saager L, Turner MS, Rao S, Bottros M, Hantler C, Jacobsohn E, Evers AS. Anesthesia awareness and the bispectral index. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1097–108
10. Mashour GA, Shanks A, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, Turner CR, Ramachandran SK, Picton P, Schueller C, Morris M, Vandervest JC, Lin N, Avidan MS. Prevention of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall in an unselected surgical population: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:717–25
11. Punjasawadwong Y, Boonjeungmonkol N, Phongchiewboon A. Bispectral index for improving anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:CD003843
12. El Hor T, Van Der Linden P, De Hert S, Mélot C, Bidgoli J. Impact of entropy monitoring on volatile anesthetic uptake. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:868–73
13. Leslie K, Myles PS, Forbes A, Chan MT. The effect of bispectral index monitoring on long-term survival in the B-Aware trial. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:816–22
14. Kertai MD, Palanca BJ, Pal N, Burnside BA, Zhang L, Sadiq F, Finkel KJ, Avidan MSB-Unaware Study Group. . Bispectral index monitoring, duration of bispectral index below 45, patient risk factors, and intermediate-term mortality after noncardiac surgery in the B-Unaware trial. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:545–56
15. Myles PS, Symons JA, Leslie K. Anaesthetists’ attitudes towards awareness and depth-of-anaesthesia monitoring. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:11–6
16. Lau K, Matta B, Menon DK, Absalom AR. Attitudes of anaesthetists to awareness and depth of anaesthesia monitoring in the UK. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:921–30
17. Jones D, Story D, Clavisi O, Jones R, Peyton P. An introductory guide to survey research in anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34:245–53
18. Todd MM. Principles of successful sample surveys. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1251–2
19. Avidan MS, Mashour GA. Prevention of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall: making sense of the evidence. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:449–56
20. Pandit JJ, Cook TM, Jonker WR, O’Sullivan E5th National Audit Project (NAP5) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. . A national survey of anaesthetists (NAP5 Baseline) to estimate an annual incidence of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in the UK. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:343–53
21. Avidan MS, Jacobsohn E, Glick D, Burnside BA, Zhang L, Villafranca A, Karl L, Kamal S, Torres B, O’Connor M, Evers AS, Gradwohl S, Lin N, Palanca BJ, Mashour GABAG-RECALL Research Group. . Prevention of intraoperative awareness in a high-risk surgical population. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:591–600
22. Rinehardt EK, Sivarajan M. Costs and wastes in anesthesia care. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012;25:221–5
23. Videira RL, Vieira JE. What rules of thumb do clinicians use to decide whether to antagonize nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drugs? Anesth Analg. 2011;113:1192–6
24. Ball RD, Henao JP, Ibinson JW, Metro DG. Peripheral intravenous catheter infiltration: anesthesia providers do not adhere to their own ideas of best practice. J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:115–20
25. Health Research Council of New Zealand. The BALANCED Anaesthesia Study. Available at: http://balancedstudy.org.nz/
. Accessed June 15, 2013
26. Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. 2012;307:1805–6
© 2014 International Anesthesia Research Society
27. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from the national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Q. 2006;70:759–79