Considerations for patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing ambulatory surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to discuss the anesthetic considerations of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients undergoing ambulatory surgery and the current recommendations based on recent evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: It is documented that 75% of patients with high propensity for OSA were not diagnosed prior to ambulatory surgery. An OSA screening questionnaire, the STOP-Bang questionnaire, may be useful to identify patients who have high risk of OSA. Patients with mild-to-moderate OSA with optimized comorbid condition should be able to safely undergo ambulatory surgery. However, severe OSA patients without optimized comorbid conditions are not ideal candidates for ambulatory surgery. Recently, transient oxygen desaturation in postanesthetic care unit has been described in OSA patients with no further increase in unanticipated hospital admission after ambulatory surgery. However, OSA patients undergoing ambulatory upper airway surgery often have lower threshold for hospitalization. A majority of OSA patients are undergoing ambulatory surgery safely. Careful choice of OSA patients, the use of short-acting anesthetic agents with increased perioperative vigilance helps to reduce the adverse cardiopulmonary events in the ambulatory anesthetic settings. Facilities for inpatient admission of OSA patients when necessary should be available. It may not be safe to discharge severe OSA patients who require narcotic analgesics in the postoperative period. SUMMARY: The recent publications indicated that the majority of OSA patients may be done as ambulatory surgical patients with few adverse events. However, it may not be safe to do patients with severe OSA requiring postoperative narcotics as ambulatory surgical patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".