Inadvertent Burst Suppression During Total Intravenous Anesthesia in 112 Consecutive Patients Undergoing Spinal Instrumentation Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Quality Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence and quantification of inadvertent electroencephalographic burst suppression during total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) for spine instrumentation surgery has not previously been reported. METHODS: The primary aim of this retrospective observational quality improvement project was to establish the prevalence of burst suppression during spine instrumentation surgery with TIVA. The secondary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. RESULTS: One hundred twelve consecutive patients, aged between 20 and 88 years, underwent spinal instrumentation surgery. Seventy-eight (69.6%) patients experienced inadvertent burst suppression; the maximal degree of burst suppression ratio was 20% to 100%. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time spent in burst suppression was 44 (77) minutes, and burst suppression was present for 22% (range: 2% to 93%) of the monitoring period. Average (±SD) propofol dose was lower in patients with burst suppression (87±19 vs. 93±15 µg/kg/min, P=0.04). Ten (8.9%) patients experienced postoperative delirium. Intraoperative burst suppression was more prevalent in those that experienced delirium (100% vs. 66.7%, P=0.03, relative risk: 1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-1.7). The proportion of the monitoring period spent in maximal burst suppression (15.3 [25.9]% vs.11.7 [21.7]%) was similar between those that did, and did not, experience delirium. CONCLUSIONS: High rates and prolonged periods of inadvertent burst suppression may be prevalent during spine instrumentation surgery with TIVA. Our findings suggest that usage of electroencephalography alone is incomplete without prompt interpretation and intervention, mandating close communication between neuromonitoring and anesthesia teams. The dose-response relationship between burst suppression, total time spent in maximal burst suppression, and their association with delirium warrants further evaluation.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Intraoperative Seizures During Elective Craniotomy.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative seizures may affect 1% to 50% of patients undergoing craniotomy and adversely impact outcomes. However, data on intraoperative seizures are limited. This retrospective case-control study investigated the incidence and risk factors for intraoperative seizures during elective supratentorial craniotomy involving evoked potential monitoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or above undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy with evoked potential monitoring who experienced intraoperative seizures at our institution between December 2008 and March 2014 were compared with a control group generated using a random number generator. Six controls were used for each case from among the patients who underwent elective supratentorial craniotomy during the same calendar year. Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression to identify the risk factors for intraoperative seizures. RESULTS: Among the 1916 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 45 (2.3%) had intraoperative seizures. The majority of seizures occurred during burr-hole placement or craniotomy, before lesion manipulation. Timing of seizures relative to motor evoked potential runs and stimulus intensity was variable. Significant risk factors for intraoperative seizures were seizure history (odds ratio [OR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-4.46; P=0.03), diagnosis of brain tumor (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.16-4.19; P=0.02), and temporal craniotomy (OR, 5.18; 95% CI, 2.03-13.25; P=0.001). Intraoperative prophylactic use of phenytoin/fosphenytoin and levetiracetam was protective against seizure (phenytoin/fosphenytoin: OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35; P<0.001 and levetiracetam: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94; P=0.04). Phenytoin/fosphenytoin was more protective than levetiracetam (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.99; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of intraoperative seizures was 2.3%. Independent risk factors for intraoperative seizures were seizure history, diagnosis of intracranial tumor, and temporal craniotomy. Intraoperative prophylactic anticonvulsant use was protective.

A comparison of the effects of desflurane versus propofol on transcranial motor-evoked potentials in pediatric patients.

PURPOSE: The aim was to compare the effects of propofol and desflurane anesthesia on transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from pediatric patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformities. METHODS: Desflurane and propofol cohorts (25 patients each) were obtained retrospectively and matched for patient characteristics and surgical approach. MEPs from the thenar eminence and abductor hallucis were compared during maintenance anesthesia on desflurane (0.6-0.8 MAC) or propofol infusion (150-300 µg/kg/min). MEP amplitudes and durations were obtained for successive 30-min intervals for 150 min, beginning 60 min after maintenance anesthesia. RESULTS: Mean peak to peak amplitudes of MEPs under desflurane anesthesia from the thenar eminence (419 µV) and abductor hallucis (386 µv) were not significantly different from those under propofol (608 µV, 343 µV, thenar, and abductor hallucis, respectively). Stimulation was greater by 42 V and 136 mA, and trains were slightly longer in the desflurane compared to the propofol group (p < 0.05). Most MEP amplitudes for the desflurane and propofol cohorts remained the same or increased (71 % of cases) when those after 150 min were compared to those in the first 30-min interval. CONCLUSIONS: MEPs with good amplitudes were obtained under desflurane only anesthesia that were comparable to propofol only anesthesia in pediatric patients during surgery for spinal deformities. There was no evidence for anesthetic fade over the time period examined. When used by itself, desflurane can be considered a viable alternative to propofol anesthesia.