These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Current use of nitrous oxide in public hospitals in Scandinavian countries.
    Author: Husum B, Stenqvist O, Alahuhta S, Sigurdsson GH, Dale O.
    Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2013 Oct; 57(9):1131-7. PubMed ID: 23889322.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The use of nitrous oxide in modern anaesthesia has been questioned. We surveyed changes in use of nitrous oxide in Scandinavia and its justifications during the last two decades. METHODS: All 191 departments of anaesthesia in the Scandinavian countries were requested by email to answer an electronic survey in SurveyMonkey. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five (64%) of the departments responded; four were excluded. The 121 departments provided 807.520 general anaesthetics annually. The usage of nitrous oxide was reported in 11.9% of cases, ranging from 0.6% in Denmark to 38.6% in Iceland while volatile anaesthetics were employed in 48.9%, lowest in Denmark (22.6%) and highest in Iceland (91.9%). Nitrous oxide was co-administered with volatile anaesthetics in 21.5% of general anaesthetics [2.4% (Denmark) -34.5% (Iceland)]. Use of nitrous oxide was unchanged in five departments (4%), decreasing in 75 (62%) and stopped in 41 (34%). Reasons for decreasing or stopping use of nitrous oxide were fairly uniform in the five countries, the most important being that other agents were 'better', whereas few put weight on its potential risk for increasing morbidity. Decision to stop using nitrous oxide was made by the departments except in four cases. Of 87 maternity wards, nitrous oxide was used in 72, whereas this was the case in 42 of 111 day-surgery units. CONCLUSION: The use of nitrous oxide has decreased in the Scandinavian countries, apparently because many now prefer other agents. Difference in practices between the five countries were unexpected and apparently not justified on anticipated evidence only.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]