Background Multiple authors have reported that “general anesthesia”(GA), as a generic and uncharacterized therapy, is contraindicated for patients undergoing endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke(EMAIS). The recent AHA update cautiously suggests that it might be reasonable to favor conscious sedation over GA during EMAIS. We are concerned that such recommendations will result in patients undergoing endovascular treatment without consideration of the effects of specific anesthetic agents, anesthetic dose, nor appropriate critical consideration of the individual patient's issues. We hypothesized that significant variation in anesthetic practice comprises GA and that outcome differences among types of GA would arise. Methods With IRB approval we examined records of patients who underwent anterior circulation EMAIS at UPenn from 2010 to 2015. Patients were managed by different anesthesiologists with no specific protocol. We analyzed ASA status, NIHSS, type of stroke, procedure, different types of anesthetic, blood pressure control, and outcome metrics. Modified Rankin Scales(mRS) were determined from medical records. Results GA was used in 91% of patients. Several types of GA were employed: intravenous(TIVA), volatile, and intravenous/volatile(combined). mRS scores ≤2 at discharge were observed in 42.8% of our patients receiving volatile anesthesia and were better in patients receiving only volatile agents after induction of anesthesia (P<0.05). Conclusion Our data support the notion that anesthetic techniques and associated physiology used in EMAIS are not homogenous, making any statements about the effects of generic “GA” in stroke ambiguous. Moreover, our data suggest that the type of GA may affect outcome after EMAIS.

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients.ResultsSA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness.ConclusionSA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.

Cognitive aids and evidence-based checklists are frequently utilized in complex situations across many disciplines and sectors. The purpose of such aids is not simply to provide instruction so as to fulfill a task, but rather to ensure that all contingencies related to the emergency are considered and accounted for and that the task at hand is completed fully, despite possible distractions. Furthermore, utilization of a checklist enhances communication to all team members by allowing all stakeholders to know and understand exactly what is occurring, what has been accomplished, and what remains to be done. Here we present a set of evidence-based critical event cognitive aids for neuroanesthesia emergencies developed by the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) Education Committee.

Background: Neuroprotection studies are generally unable to demonstrate efficacy in humans. Our specific hypothesis is that multiple pathophysiologic pathways, of variable importance, contribute to ischemic brain damage. As a corollary to this, we discuss the broad hypothesis that a multifaceted approach will improve the probability of efficacious neuroprotection. But to properly test this hypothesis the nature and importance of the multiple contributing pathways needs elucidation. Our aim is to demonstrate, using functional genomics, in human cardiac surgery procedures associated with cerebral ischemia, that the pathogenesis of perioperative human ischemic brain damage involves the function of multiple variably weighted proteins involving several pathways. We then use these data and literature to develop a proposal for rational design of human neuroprotection protocols.Methods: Ninety-four patients undergoing deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) and/or aortic valve replacement surgery had brain damage biomarkers, S100β and neurofilament H (NFH), assessed at baseline, 1 and 24 h post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with analysis for association with 92 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (selected by co-author WAK) related to important proteins involved in pathogenesis of cerebral ischemia.Results: At the nominal significance level of 0.05, changes in S100β and in NFH at 1 and 24 h post-CPB were associated with multiple SNPs involving several prospectively determined pathophysiologic pathways, but were not individually significant after multiple comparison adjustments. Variable weights for the several evaluated SNPs are apparent on regression analysis and, notably, are dissimilar related to the two biomarkers and over time post CPB. Based on our step-wise regression model, at 1 h post-CPB, SOD2, SUMO4, and GP6 are related to relative change of NFH while TNF, CAPN10, NPPB, and SERPINE1 are related to the relative change of S100B. At 24 h post-CPB, ADRA2A, SELE, and BAX are related to the relative change of NFH while SLC4A7, HSPA1B, and FGA are related to S100B.Conclusions: In support of the proposed hypothesis, association SNP data suggest function of specific disparate proteins, as reflected by genetic variation, may be more important than others with variation at different post-insult times after human brain ischemia. Such information may support rational design of post-insult time-sensitive multifaceted neuroprotective therapies.