16 research outputs found

    Sensory Communication

    Get PDF
    Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fourteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC52107U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-95-1-0176U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0002National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-184

    Sensory Communication

    Get PDF
    Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0002U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0635U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0655U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 NS33778Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy Research Fellowship Gran

    General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

    Get PDF
    There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)
    corecore