Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users. We sought to investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting. In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from 2 university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. The interview transcripts were subdivided sentence-by-sentence into discrete statements, and statements were then grouped into key themes. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from 3 university hospitals for rating. In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of the potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group. Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research to the clinic.

Background: Patient blood management (PBM) is a multidisciplinary and patient-centered treatment approach, comprising the detection and treatment of anemia, the minimization of blood loss, and the rational use of allogeneic transfusions. Pregnancy, delivery, and the puerperium are associated with increased rates of iron deficiency and anemia, which correlates with worse maternal and fetal outcomes and places pregnant women at increased risk of obstetric hemorrhage. Summary: Early screening for iron deficiency before the onset of anemia, as well as the use of oral and intravenous iron to treat iron deficiency anemia, has been shown to be beneficial. Anemia in pregnancy and the puerperium should be treated according to a staged regimen, administering either iron alone or in combination with an off-label use of human recombinant erythropoietin in selected patients. This regimen should be tailored to the needs of each individual patient. Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) accounts for up to one-third of maternal deaths in both developing and developed countries. Bleeding complications should be anticipated and blood loss reduced by interdisciplinary preventive measures and individually tailored care. It is recommended that facilities have a PPH algorithm, primarily focusing on prevention through use of uterotonics, but also incorporating early diagnosis of the cause of bleeding, optimization of hemostatic conditions, timely administration of tranexamic acid, and integration of point-of-care tests to support the guided substitution of coagulation factors, alongside standard laboratory tests. Additionally, cell salvage has proven beneficial and should be considered for various indications in obstetrics including hematologic disturbances, as well as various forms of placental disorders. Key Message: This article reviews PBM in pregnancy, delivery, and the puerperium. The concept comprises early screening and treatment of anemia and iron deficiency, a transfusion and coagulation algorithm during delivery, as well as cell salvage.

BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users. OBJECTIVE Investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI, and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting. METHODS In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from two university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to statements derived from these interviews, and key themes were determined. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from three university hospitals for rating. RESULTS In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group. CONCLUSIONS Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research into the clinic.

Blood gas analysis plays a central role in modern medicine. Advances in technology have expanded the range of available parameters and increased the complexity of their interpretation. By applying user-centered design principles, it is possible to reduce the cognitive load associated with interpreting blood gas analysis. In this international, multicenter study, we explored anesthesiologists' perspectives on Visual Blood, a novel visualization technique for presenting blood gas analysis results. We conducted interviews with participants following two computer-based simulation studies: the first utilizing Virtual Reality (VR) (50 participants) and the second without VR (70 participants). Employing the template approach, we identified key themes in the interview responses and formulated six statements, which were rated using Likert scales: from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) in an online questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned theme was the positive usability features of Visual Blood. The online survey revealed that participants found Visual Blood to be an intuitive method for interpreting blood gas analysis (median 4, IQR 4-4, p<0.001). Participants noted that minimal training was required to effectively learn how to interpret Visual Blood (median 4, IQR 4-4, p<0.001). However, adjustments are necessary to reduce visual overload (median 4, IQR 2-4, p<0.001). Overall, Visual Blood received a favorable response. The strengths and weaknesses derived from these data will help optimize future versions of Visual Blood to improve the presentation of blood gas analysis results.

Blood gas analysis plays a central role in modern medicine. Advances in technology have expanded the range of available parameters and increased the complexity of their interpretation. By applying user-centered design principles, it is possible to reduce the cognitive load associated with interpreting blood gas analysis. In this international, multicenter study, we explored anesthesiologists’ perspectives on Visual Blood, a novel visualization technique for presenting blood gas analysis results. We conducted interviews with participants following two computer-based simulation studies, the first utilizing virtual reality (VR) (50 participants) and the second without VR (70 participants). Employing the template approach, we identified key themes in the interview responses and formulated six statements, which were rated using Likert scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) in an online questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned theme was the positive usability features of Visual Blood. The online survey revealed that participants found Visual Blood to be an intuitive method for interpreting blood gas analysis (median 4, interquartile range (IQR) 4-4, p < 0.001). Participants noted that minimal training was required to effectively learn how to interpret Visual Blood (median 4, IQR 4-4, p < 0.001). However, adjustments are necessary to reduce visual overload (median 4, IQR 2-4, p < 0.001). Overall, Visual Blood received a favorable response. The strengths and weaknesses derived from these data will help optimize future versions of Visual Blood to improve the presentation of blood gas analysis results.