Quantitation of strain BALB-c mouse peritoneal cells.

Total and differential counts of the peritoneal cells of male and female BALB/c mice aged 10 days to over 2 years demonstrate that the increase in cell number that occurs in mice over 2 months old is due entirely to an increase in lymphocytes. The number of peritoneal macrophages in BALB/c females is maintained at a constant level for 22 months. The stability of the macrophage population in contrast to the increase in numbers of lymphocytes suggests that the body pools of these two cell types are not related.

Minimizing intraoperative recall.

Intraoperative recall has plagued the administration of general anesthesia since the technique was first described, but the media's recent attention to the issue has heightened public awareness and brought it to the forefront of patient concerns. Now, more than ever, patients are asking about the possibility of 'waking up during the operation'. The following review of the literature reveals potential strategies for reducing the risk and managing the sequelae of intraoperative recall.

BIS monitoring to prevent awareness during general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Unexpected awareness is a rare but well-described complication of general anesthesia that has received increased scientific and media attention in the past few years. Transformed electroencephalogram monitors, such as the Bispectral Index monitor, have been advocated as tools to prevent unexpected recall. METHODS: The authors conducted a power analysis to estimate how many patients would be needed in an appropriately powered study to demonstrate the Bispectral Index monitor reduces awareness, as well as a cost analysis to assess the cost of using the monitor for this purpose alone. RESULTS: If unexpected recall is rare (1 in 20,000), it will require a large study to demonstrate that the monitor reduces awareness (200,000-800,000 patients), and the cost of using it for this purpose alone would be high ($400,000 per case prevented). If awareness is common (1 in 100), then the number of patients needed in a study to demonstrate that the monitor works becomes tractable (1,000-4,000 patients), and the cost of using the monitor for this purpose alone becomes lower ($2,000 per case prevented). Because there are reported cases of awareness despite Bispectral Index monitoring, the authors are certain that the effectiveness of the monitor is less than 100%. As the performance of the monitor decreases from 100%, the size of the study needed to demonstrate that it works increases, as does the cost of using it to prevent awareness. CONCLUSION: The contention that Bispectral Index monitoring reduces the risk of awareness is unproven, and the cost of using it for this indication is currently unknown.

Experimental and predicted dual oximetry variability.

OBJECTIVE: We wished to determine whether the individual bias (mean difference) and precision (standard deviation of the difference) values of 2 variables, arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), could be used to predict the bias and precision values of the combined dual oximetry variable (SaO2-SvO2). METHODS: We simultaneously measured SaO2 by pulse oximetry and arterial blood gas co-oximetry and SvO2 by fiberoptic reflectance oximetry pulmonary artery catheter and venous blood gas co-oximetry in 238 data sets from 55 patients. Three different methods were used to predict the standard deviation of the difference of (SaO2-SvO2) [s delta(SaO2-SvO2)]: simple sum, root mean square (RMS) error, and RMS error with correction term. We derived the equation for the RMS error with correction term because initial results showed that the simple sum and RMS error methods did not predict s delta(SaO2-SvO2) well. The correction term accounts for the non-independence of simultaneous SaO2 and SvO2 measurements. RESULTS: The observed overall bias of the SaO2, SvO2, and (SaO2-SvO2) measurement methods were 0.17, -1.76, and 1.94, respectively. The observed overall s delta(SaO2-SvO2) of the (SaO2-SvO2) measurement method was 5.12. The simple sum method overestimated the actual s delta(SaO2-SvO2) by 38%, the RMS error method differed from the actual s delta(SaO2-SvO2) by 3%, and the RMS error with correction term method matched the actual s delta(SaO2-SvO2). CONCLUSION: The bias of a (SaO2-SvO2) measurement method is simply the bias of the SaO2 measurement method less the bias of the SvO2 measurement method. s delta(SaO2-SvO2) is best predicted by the derived equation, RMS error with correction term. The same principles and equations also apply to other situations in which 2 variables with the same dimensions are combined into 1 variable, such as (PaCO2-EtCO2) gradients and perfusion-pressure gradients. Although the difference between the s delta(SaO2-SvO2) predicted by the RMS error equation and the derived RMS error equation with correction term was small, the difference may be significant for other combined variables.