Neurodevelopmental outcomes after initial childhood anesthetic exposure between ages 3 and 10 years.

INTRODUCTION: Epidemiologic studies examining the association between anesthetic exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes have primarily focused on exposures occurring under 3 years of age. In this study, we assess outcomes associated with initial anesthetic exposure occurring between 3 and 10 years of age. METHODS: We used data from the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study to examine the risk of cognitive deficit at age 10 in children with initial anesthetic exposure between 3 and 5 years and between 5 and 10 years of age compared with children unexposed at those ages. The cohort included 2868 children born from 1989 to 1992 evaluated using a range of neuropsychological tests. A modified multivariable Poisson regression model was used to determine the adjusted association of initial anesthetic exposure in each age group with outcomes. RESULTS: Exposed and unexposed children were found to have similar neuropsychological test results except for the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND) motor function scores. Even after adjusting for demographic and comorbidity differences, children exposed to anesthesia had a higher risk of motor deficit after initial exposure between ages 3 and 5 years (adjusted risk ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.79) and between 5 and 10 years (adjusted risk ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-4.48) compared with unexposed children. CONCLUSIONS: Initial exposure to anesthesia after age 3 had no measurable effects on language or cognitive function. Decreased motor function was found in children initially exposed after age 3 even after accounting for comorbid illness and injury history. These results suggest that there may be distinct windows of vulnerability for different neurodevelopmental domains in children.

Comparative analysis of outcome measures used in examining neurodevelopmental effects of early childhood anesthesia exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Immature animals exposed to anesthesia display apoptotic neurodegeneration and neurobehavioral deficits. The safety of anesthetic agents in children has been evaluated using a variety of neurodevelopmental outcome measures with varied results. METHODS: The authors used data from the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study to examine the association between exposure to anesthesia in children younger than 3 yr of age and three types of outcomes at age of 10 yr: neuropsychological testing, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-coded clinical disorders, and academic achievement. The authors' primary analysis was restricted to children with data for all outcomes and covariates from the total cohort of 2,868 children born from 1989 to 1992. The authors used a modified multivariable Poisson regression model to determine the adjusted association of anesthesia exposure with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 781 children studied, 112 had anesthesia exposure. The incidence of deficit ranged from 5.1 to 7.8% in neuropsychological tests, 14.6 to 29.5% in International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-coded outcomes, and 4.2 to 11.8% in academic achievement tests. Compared with unexposed peers, exposed children had an increased risk of deficit in neuropsychological language assessments (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Total Score: adjusted risk ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41 to 4.33, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Receptive Language Score: adjusted risk ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.18, and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Expressive Language Score: adjusted risk ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.68) and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-coded language and cognitive disorders (adjusted risk ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.10), but not academic achievement scores. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing cognition in children with early exposure to anesthesia, the results may depend on the outcome measure used. Neuropsychological and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-coded clinical outcomes showed an increased risk of deficit in exposed children compared with that in unexposed children, whereas academic achievement scores did not. This may explain some of the variation in the literature and underscores the importance of the outcome measures when interpreting studies of cognitive function.

Comparative efficacy of acustimulation (ReliefBand) versus ondansetron (Zofran) in combination with droperidol for preventing nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.

Anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy in obese patients.

IMPLICATIONS: Obese patients have successfully undergone over 650 consecutive uncomplicated ECT treatments without any special precautions at two major U.S. medical centers.