Perioperative care of obstructive sleep apnea patients: A survey of European anesthesiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is prevalent in the surgical patient population and is associated with high risk of perioperative complications. There are limited guidelines and wide practice variations regarding the perioperative care of obese and OSA patients. This is a study of European anesthesiologists' clinical practice of perioperative care of OSA patients. Methods: This survey evaluated United Kingdom anesthesiologists' clinical practice of the perioperative care of OSA patients. Outcomes and variables were compared between 4100 anesthesiologists of different clinical experience and hospital settings. Results: Approximately 45% of respondents manage OSA patients rarely, 42% occasionally, and 13% regularly. Most respondents order OSA screening tests if patients have tonsillar hypertrophy, head/neck tumor, BMI >35, increased neck circumference, craniofacial anomaly, and right-sided electrocardiography (ECG) anomaly. Majority request preoperative polysomnography, ECG, overnight pulse oximetry, and arterial blood gas analysis. Majority recommend preoperative weight loss, optimisation, smoking cessation, reduction of substance use, and regular mask-CPAP use. Majority consider endoscopy, and ophthalmology as appropriate day case procedures, but not laparoscopy. Majority postpone elective airway, laparoscopic, laparotomy, and head/neck surgery; if patients are not optimized preoperatively. For major surgery, combined general + neuraxial anesthesia was ranked as 3 rd option. For major limb surgery, neuraxial anesthesia without sedation was ranked as 1 st option, nerve block without sedation was ranked 2 nd , and general anesthesia + nerve block was ranked 3 rd or 4 th . At anesthesia emergence, majority ensure that patients have normal consciousness, respiration and neuromuscular function. Majority ensure postoperative oximetry, telemetry, and oxygen supplementation. Conclusion: This study highlights variations in anesthesiologists' perioperative care of OSA patients; even in developed countries with advanced medical training and standards. The study outcomes will improve perioperative care of OSA 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".