Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Procedures: A Review of the Literature.

Idiopathic achalasia is a motility disorder of the esophagus with important implications on anesthesia and periprocedural management. As new and more complex treatment options develop, anesthesiologists are increasingly involved with these patients. The cardinal symptoms of achalasia are as follows: dysphagia, regurgitation, chest pain, and weight loss. Achalasia is also associated with an increased risk of aspiration. Patients are frequently treated by endoscopic botulinum toxin injections, pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). The POEM procedure is based on the concept of "natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery." Because the integrity of the esophageal wall is deliberately interrupted during POEM, the mediastinum and the peritoneal cavity may be exposed. Thus, the insufflated carbon dioxide frequently causes hypercapnia, tension capnoperitoneum, capnomediastinum, or pneumothoraces. An interdisciplinary team, skilled in diagnostics and emergency measures such as therapeutic hyperventilation, percutaneous abdominal needle decompression, or pleural drainage, is essential for the successful periprocedural management of POEM. POEM is one endoscopic procedure that requires general anesthesia. But neither anesthesia-specific care algorithms nor evidence-based recommendations are currently available for these patients. Because institutional experience varies broadly across the globe, this review examines anesthesia recommendations and perioperative management of POEM procedures based on 7 retrospective case series, 1 prospective study, and our personal experience.

Retrospective analysis of central venous catheters in elective intracranial surgery - Is there any benefit?

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the use of central venous catheters (CVC) improves a patient's clinical outcome after elective intracranial supratentorial procedures. METHODS: This two-armed, single-center retrospective study sought to compare patients undergoing elective intracranial surgery with and without CVCs. Standard anaesthesia procedures were modified during the study period resulting in the termination of obligatory CVC instrumentation for supratentorial procedures. Peri-operative adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as primary endpoint. RESULTS: The data of 621 patients in total was analysed in this study (301 with and 320 without CVC). Patient characteristics and surgical procedures were comparable between both study groups. A total of 132 peri-operative AEs (81 in the group with CVC vs. 51 in the group without CVC) regarding neurological, neurosurgical, cardiovascular events and death were observed. CVC patients suffer from AEs almost twice as often as non CVC patients (ORadjusted = 1.98; 95%CI[1.28-3.06]; p = 0.002). Complications related to catheter placement (pneumothorax and arterial malpuncture) were observed in 1.0% of the cases. The ICU treatment period in patients with CVC was 22 (19;24) vs. 21 (19;24) hours (p = 0.413). The duration of hospital stay was also similar between groups (9 (7;13) vs. 8 (7;11) days, p = 0.210). The total time of ventilation (350 (300;440) vs. 335 (281;405) min, p = 0.003) and induction time (40 (35;50) vs. 30 (25;35) min, p<0.001) was found to be prolonged significantly in the group with CVCs. There were no differences found in post-operative inflammatory markers as well as antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: The data of our retrospective study suggests that patients undergoing elective neurosurgical procedures with CVCs do not demonstrate any additional benefits in comparison to patients without a CVC.