Availability of a remote online hemodynamic monitoring system during treatment in a private dental office for medically high-risk patients

Figures & data

Figure 1 Diagram of remote online hemodynamic monitoring systems.

Abbreviations: NIBP, noninvasive blood pressure; HR, heart rate; ECG, electrocardiogram; SpO₂, percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation.

Table 1 Background of the cases

Enforcement period	From 2001 to 2007 (84 months)
Number of participation dental offices	8
Number of total patients	66
Number of total cases	98
Number of cases per month	1.16
Average age of the patients (yr)	65.8 ± 14.2
Minimum – Maximum age (yr)	22–87
Gender (male : female)	36 : 30 (54.5% : 45.5%)

Table 2 Patients’ primary complications

Complication	Number	Percent	Details
Hypertension	28	28.6%
Cardiac disease	15	15.3%	Arrhythmia 9, Pace maker 2, Cardiomegaly 2, Valve disease 2
Coronary disease	12	12.2%	Angina 7, Old myocardial infarction 4
Diabetes mellitus	10	10.2%
Psychiatric disease	7	7.1%	Mental retardation 5, Dementia 1, Schizophrenia 1
Dental phobia	5	5.1%
Respiratory disease	4	4.1%	Asthma 2, COLD 1, Lung cancer 1
Cerebral palsy	3	3.1%
Drug allergy	3	3.1%
Post-cerebral stroke	3	3.1%	Post-infarction 2, Post-hemorrhage 1
Renal disease	2	2%	Hemodialysis by chronic renal failure 2
Liver disease	2	2%	Liver cirrhosis 2
Muscle disease	1	1%	Muscular dystrophy 1
Others	3	3.1%
Total	98	100%

Table 3 Systemic management methods

Systemic management	Number	Percent
Monitoring during the dental procedure	70	71.4%
Checking vital signs after an interview	15	15.3%
Monitoring under intravenous sedation	9	9.2%
Monitoring under nitrous oxide sedation	4	4.1%
Total	98	100%

Table 4 Unscheduled procedures for the systemic management

Unscheduled procedures	Number	Percent
Consultation with a medical doctor	15	15.3%
Use of a depressor for hypertension	9	9.2%
Discontinuance of dental procedure	5	5.1%
Procedure for a shock	3	3.1%
Use of a coronary vasodilator	2	2%
Antibiotics infusion	1	1%
Total	35	35.7%

Table 5 Results of questionnaires from the patients

Obtained questionnaires		30/66 patients (Collection rate 45.5%)
Average age of the patients (yr)		64.2 ± 10.1
Minimum – Maximum age (yr)		24–79
Gender (male : female)		14 : 16 (46.7% : 53.3%)
Question A. What was your first impression when you hear this system?
Very good	Good	Neutral	Bad	Very bad
6 (20%)	16 (53.3%)	8 (26.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Question B. What was your impression when you experienced this system?
Very good	Good	Neutral	Bad	Very bad
13 (43.3%)	11 (36.7%)	6 (20%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Question C. How was the reception of university dental hospital?
Very good	Good	Neutral	Bad	Very bad
9 (30%)	18 (60%)	3 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Question D. How was the safety impression degree about this system?
Very good	Good	Neutral	Bad	Very bad
18 (60%)	7 (23.3%)	5 (16.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Question E. How do you feel if this system develops in future?
Very good	Good	Neutral	Bad	Very bad
11 (36.7%)	17 (56.7%)	2 (6.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Question F. Could you write other opinion about this system?
No answer	It is safe	It was difficult to communicate	I felt embarrassed	I felt frightened
19 (63.3%)	5 (16.7%)	2 (6.7%)	2 (6.7%)	2 (6.7%)