Processed electroencephalography: impact of patient age and surgical position on intraoperative processed electroencephalogram monitoring of burst-suppression.

We previously reported that processed EEG underestimated the amount of burst suppression compared to off-line visual analysis. We performed a follow-up study to evaluate the reasons for the discordance. Forty-five patients were monitored intraoperatively with processed EEG. A computer algorithm was used to convert the SedLine® (machine)-generated burst suppression ratio into a raw duration of burst suppression. The reference standard was a precise off-line measurement by two neurologists. We measured other potential variables that may affect machine accuracy such as age, surgery position, and EEG artifacts. Overall, the median duration of bust suppression for all study subjects was 15.4 min (Inter-quartile Range [IQR] = 1.0-20.1) for the machine vs. 16.1 min (IQR = 0.3-19.7) for the neurologists' assessment; the 95% limits of agreement fall within - 4.86 to 5.04 s for individual 30-s epochs. EEG artifacts did not affect the concordance between the two methods. For patients in prone surgical position, the machine estimates had significantly lower overall sensitivity (0.86 vs. 0.97; p = 0.038) and significantly wider limits of agreement ([- 4.24, 3.82] seconds vs. [- 1.36, 1.13] seconds, p = 0.001) than patients in supine position. Machine readings for younger patients (age < 65 years) had higher sensitivity (0.96 vs 0.92; p = 0.021) and specificity (0.99 vs 0.88; p = 0.007) for older patients. The duration of burst suppression estimated by the machine generally had good agreement compared with neurologists' estimation using a more precise off-line measurement. Factors that affected the concordance included patient age and position during surgery, but not EEG artifacts.

Academic-drug industry fellowships.

The UNC/BW fellowship, like other industry/academia collaborative fellowships, provides a unique training experience in clinical research. Both academia and the pharmaceutical industry have opened their doors and allowed clinical pharmacists to spend a year or more developing clinical research skills and an understanding of the drug development process. Is it worth it? Is this program a benefit to the individuals, to the sponsors, or to the profession of pharmacy? The survey of these fellows provides us with the individual's perspective on the benefit and quality of the fellowship. Most believed the fellowship provided them with training to meet their needs and interests. However, given this small number of individual opinions and comments, how do we determine whether the fellowship is meeting the original goal to train clinical pharmacists to be clinical researchers? By looking at the career paths of those who have completed the program, we may gain insight into whether the fellows are involved with research. Since the fellowship has been in existence for only six years, we really can look only at the initial placement of these clinical pharmacists. A majority have gained employment with clinical research responsibilities within the pharmaceutical industry. One measure of the research capabilities of these fellows is their contributions to the scientific literature; 10 papers and 3 abstracts have been generated by fellows since they completed their fellowships (Appendix I). As expected, the research contributions of the two-year fellows are greater than that of the one-year fellows. Seven one-year fellows did not have a publication.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)