Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.

Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.

Precision Anesthesia in 2050.

Over the last few decades, the field of anesthesia has advanced far beyond its humble beginnings. Today's anesthetics are better and safer than ever, thanks to innovations in drugs, monitors, equipment, and patient safety.1-4 At the same time, we remain limited by our herd approach to medicine. Each of our patients is unique, but health care today is based on a one-size-fits-all approach, while our patients grow older and more medically complex every year. By 2050, we believe that precision medicine will play a central role across all medical specialties, including anesthesia. In addition, we expect that health care and consumer technology will continually evolve to improve and simplify the interactions between patients, providers, and the health care system. As demonstrated by 2 hypothetical patient experiences, these advancements will enable more efficient and safe care, earlier and more accurate diagnoses, and truly personalized treatment plans.

Negative pressure suction test: An intraoperative airway maneuver to assess effectiveness of surgical correction of tracheobronchomalacia.

BACKGROUND: Surgical correction of tracheobronchomalacia (TBM) has evolved greatly over the past decade, with select pediatric institutions establishing dedicated surgery and anesthesia teams to navigate the complexities and challenges of surgical airway repairs. Although anesthetic techniques have evolved internally over many years to improve patient safety and outcomes, many of these methods remain undescribed in literature. TECHNIQUE: In this article, we describe the intraoperative negative pressure suction test. This simulates the negative pressure seen in awake and spontaneously breathing patients, including the higher pressures seen during coughing which induce airway collapse in patients with TBM. Also known as the Munoz maneuver in surgical literature, this test has been performed on over 300 patients since 2015. DISCUSSION: The negative pressure suction test allows for controlled intraoperative assessment of surgical airway repairs, replaces the need for risky intraoperative wake-up tests, increases the chances of a successful surgical repair, and improves anesthetic management for emergence and extubation. We provide a guide on how to perform the test and videos demonstrating its efficacy in intraoperative airway evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: As surgeries to repair TBM become more prevalent in other pediatric institutions, we believe that pediatric patients and anesthesia providers will benefit from the insights and methods described here.

Risk Factors for Development and Progression of Scoliosis After Pediatric Cardiothoracic Operations.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for the development and rate of progression of scoliosis and moderate/severe scoliosis in patients undergoing cardiothoracic operations (CTOs). METHODS: Included were patients aged younger than 12 years who underwent CTOs in 1995 to 2006 with a preoperative chest roentgenogram (CRG) and a CRG at least 8 years after CTOs. Scoliosis and moderate/severe scoliosis were defined as a Cobb angle of 10 degrees or more and an angle of 25 degrees or more or the need for surgical intervention, respectively. Risk factors were analyzed using nonparametric and parametric survival analyses. For patients that developed scoliosis, progression rate was analyzed using linear regression models for repeated measures using CRG at 6-month intervals. RESULTS: The study included 871 patients (380 girls [44%]). Median CRG follow-up was 11 years (interquartile range, 9 to 13 years). Overall 10-year incidence of scoliosis and moderate/severe scoliosis was 12% and 3%, respectively. Independent predictors for scoliosis included female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.5), syndrome (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8), and isolated developmental delay (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2). For development of moderate/severe scoliosis, independent risk factors included female sex (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4 to 5.8), syndrome (HR, 3; 95% CI, 1.5 to 6.1), isolated developmental delay (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1 to 9.2]), and prematurity for neonates/infants (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1 to 5.2). Rate of angle progression was 0.17 times the current angle per year. Age, syndrome, and developmental delay were risk factors for angle progression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that undergo pediatric CTO, regardless of the operative approach, are at increased risk for development of scoliosis and moderate/severe scoliosis. Long-term follow-up of these patients is warranted, in particular for girls and patients with genetic syndromes or developmental delay.