Más de 3 horas y menos de 3 años: Seguridad de procedimientos anestésicos en menores de 3 años sometidos a cirugía de más de 3 horas / More than 3 hours and less than 3 years: Safety of anaesthetic procedures in infants less than 3 years old subected to surgery for more the 3 hours

La alerta de la FDA de diciembre 2016, sobre la seguridad de la anestesia general y las sedaciones en pacientes menores de 3 años y en mujeres embarazadas, ha suscitado numerosas dudas sobre la actitud que deben tomar los profesionales implicados en el tratamiento de estos pacientes. Ante esta situación, las siguientes sociedades científicas médicas: Sociedad Española de Anestesia y Reanimación (SEDAR), Sociedad Española de Cirugía Pediátrica (SECP), Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP) y Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo), han constituido un grupo de trabajo para analizar y clarificar la seguridad de estas técnicas. En este artículo concluimos que en el momento actual tanto la anestesia general como la sedación profunda deben seguir siendo consideradas como técnicas seguras, porque no existen evidencias de lo contrario en estudios con seres humanos. Esta seguridad no nos permite ignorar el problema, que debe ser seguido con atención, fundamentalmente en pacientes de menos de 3 años, sometidos a procedimientos anestésicos de más de 3 horas o a sedaciones prolongadas en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Neonatales o Pediátricos (AU)

An FDA alert in December 2016 on the safety of general anesthesia and sedations in patients less than 3 years of age and pregnant women has raised doubts in relation to the attitude that professionals implicated in these procedures should adopt in relation to these specific group of patients. Confronted with this situation, the following medical scientific societies: Sociedad Española de Anestesia y Reanimación (SEDAR), Sociedad Española de Cirugía Pediátrica (SECP), Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP) y Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo), have established a working group to analyze and clarify the safety of these techniques. In the present article we conclude that at present both general anesthesia and profound sedation are considered safe procedures because there is no evidence of the opposite in studies with human beings. However, this ascertained safety should not obviate the problem which still needs to be followed with attention, especially in patients less than 3 years of age undergoing anesthetic procedures for more than 3 hours or prolonged sedation in the Neonatal or Pediatric Intensive Care Units (AU)

[More than 3 hours and less than 3 years: Safety of anaesthetic procedures in infants less than 3 years old subected to surgery for more the 3 hours]. / Más de 3 horas y menos de 3 años: Seguridad de procedimientos anestésicos en menores de 3 años sometidos a cirugía de más de 3 horas.

An FDA alert in December 2016 on the safety of general anesthesia and sedations in patients less than 3 years of age and pregnant women has raised doubts in relation to the attitude that professionals implicated in these procedures should adopt in relation to these specific group of patients. Confronted with this situation, the following medical scientific societies: Sociedad Española de Anestesia y Reanimación (SEDAR), Sociedad Española de Cirugía Pediátrica (SECP), Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP) y Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo), have established a working group to analyze and clarify the safety of these techniques. In the present article we conclude that at present both general anesthesia and profound sedation are considered safe procedures because there is no evidence of the opposite in studies with human beings. However, this ascertained safety should not obviate the problem which still needs to be followed with attention, especially in patients less than 3 years of age undergoing anesthetic procedures for more than 3 hours or prolonged sedation in the Neonatal or Pediatric Intensive Care Units.

Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A new supraglottic device, the LMA-Supreme™, has recently become available for clinical use. Information on anaesthetic and co-adjuvant requirements for insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ is limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimal effect-site concentration of propofol in 50 % (EC50) of adults necessary for successful insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ and to examine remifentanil's effect on propofol requirements. METHODS: Fifty-eight elective patients (aged 18-60 years; ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status classification I and II) scheduled for day surgery were randomly assigned to one of two groups: propofol with saline or propofol with remifentanil. Anaesthesia was induced by target-controlled infusion according to predetermined effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil (5 ng.mL(-1)). The EC50 was calculated using Dixon's up-and-down method. Ten minutes following drug administration, LMA-Supreme™ insertion was attempted without the use of muscle relaxant drugs. RESULTS: In the propofol + saline group, the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 6.32 ± 0.67 µg.mL(-1) (95 % CI, 5.69-6.94 µg.mL(-1)). With the addition of remifentanil at an effect-site concentration of 5 ng.mL(-1), the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 2.50 ± 0.80 µg.mL(-1) (95 % CI, 1.82-3.17 µg.mL(-1); p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The propofol requirement for smooth insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ was 60 % less when remifentanil (5 ng.mL(-1)) was co-administered. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identified as NCT01974648 at www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Preoperative smoking cessation counseling activities of anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Smokers undergoing surgery are at a higher risk of complications than non-smokers. Preoperative evaluation by an anesthesiologist could provide an excellent opportunity to promote smoking cessation. Previous surveys of anesthesiologists have found that self-reported smoking cessation counseling rates have room for improvement, but no study has surveyed patients to obtain more accurate estimates. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted from January 2010 to June 2010 in a tertiary teaching hospital. A telephone survey was conducted, which included all adult cigarette smokers who visited the preoperative anesthesia clinic. The survey recorded anesthesiologist-delivered interventions to help patients quit smoking before surgery. At the end of the study period, the self-reported smoking cessation counseling of the anesthesiologist was evaluated by questionnaire. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixty-five patients were evaluated, of which 217 were current smokers with a median pack-year of 15 (interquartile range 5.25-30.00) and 34% were scheduled to undergo major surgery. With regard to preoperative interventions, most anesthesiologists (85%) asked about smoking status, although only 31% advised patients about the health risks of smoking and 23% advised patients to quit before surgery. Provision of assistance to help patients quit was provided in 3% of cases. By contrast, 75% of anesthesiologists stated that they frequently or almost always advised patients about the health risks of smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant discrepancies between direct patient surveys of preoperative smoking cessation counseling activities by anesthesiologists and the self-reported perceptions of the anesthesiologists. Future studies are urgently needed to evaluate the provision of educational materials and other interventions to improve smoking cessation counseling rates among anesthesiologists and to narrow these discrepancies.

The Size 1 ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, noncrossover study with the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, numerous scientific publications have endorsed the superiority of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) over the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in adults, children, and infants. The PLMA forms a better seal for both the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, provides easier access to the gastrointestinal tract, and exerts lower mucosal pressures for a given seal pressure. This study aims to determine whether this superiority can also be observed for the size 1 PLMA used in anesthetized neonates and infants with positive pressure ventilation. METHODS: Sixty consecutive neonates and infants undergoing elective surgical procedures were randomized to airway management with the size 1 PLMA or cLMA. For all patients, we recorded ease of insertion, effective airway time, number of placement attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic position, audible leaks, mask displacement, number of reinsertions during maintenance, gastric insufflation, and frequency of blood stain. RESULTS: Ease of insertion, successful insertion in <3 attempts, fiberoptic position of the airway tube, and frequency of blood stain were similar in both groups. Effective airway time was lower for the PLMA group (30.5 vs 35.6 s). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the PLMA (32.9 vs 22.2 cm H(2)O, P < 0.001) and gastric insufflation less common (0% vs 6%, P = 0.492). There were fewer mask displacements during maintenance of anesthesia with the PLMA (0% vs 26.7%, P < 0.001). Mask reinsertion was not necessary during maintenance of anesthesia with the PLMA, although it was necessary in 14 cases in the cLMA group (0% vs 46%, P < 0.001). Audible leaks were less common with the PLMA (0% vs 46%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the size 1 PLMA is a stable, safe, and efficacious airway control device during neonatal and infant anesthesia, allowing higher peak airway pressure during positive pressure ventilation, with fewer mask displacements and gastric insufflations than the cLMA.

Anesthesia for pediatric gastroscopy: a study comparing the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with nasal cannulae.

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that pediatric gastroscopy is more successful using the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the drain tube as a conduit to the stomach (ProSeal LMA group) than using nasal cannulae with conventional oral access to the stomach (NC group). METHODS: Sixty children were consecutively and randomly allocated into each group. Patients breathed spontaneously and were given sevoflurane/air/oxygen mixture with propofol 1 mg.kg-1 boluses, as required. Anesthesia was provided by experienced users of both techniques. The following data were collected by an unblinded observer: operation and anesthesia times; cardiorespiratory data; adverse events; and recovery scores. In addition, the surgeon scored the ease of performing the procedure. RESULTS: The mean (range) age and weight was 74 (24-144) months and 26 (10-61) kg. Operation (15 min vs 24 min, P<0.0001) and anesthesia (22 min vs 37 min, P<0.0001) times were shorter in the ProSeal LMA group, but propofol bolus requirements per unit time were similar. Oxygen saturation was higher in the ProSeal LMA group (100% vs 94%, P<0.0006), but other cardiorespiratory variables were similar. There were no differences in the ease of performing the procedure. Hypoxia occurred more frequently in the NC group (20% vs 0%). Recovery scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pediatric gastroscopy is quicker and has fewer airway complications when performed through the ProSeal LMA than using nasal cannulae and a conventional approach by experienced users.