Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Functional connectivity across the cortex has been posited to be important for consciousness and anesthesia, but functional connectivity patterns during the course of surgery and general anesthesia are unknown. The authors tested the hypothesis that disrupted cortical connectivity patterns would correlate with surgical anesthesia. Methods Surgical patients (n = 53) were recruited for study participation. Whole-scalp (16-channel) wireless electroencephalographic data were prospectively collected throughout the perioperative period. Functional connectivity was assessed using weighted phase lag index. During anesthetic maintenance, the temporal dynamics of connectivity states were characterized via Markov chain analysis, and state transition probabilities were quantified. Results Compared to baseline (weighted phase lag index, 0.163, ± 0.091), alpha frontal–parietal connectivity was not significantly different across the remaining anesthetic and perioperative epochs, ranging from 0.100 (± 0.041) to 0.218 (± 0.136) (P > 0.05 for all time periods). In contrast, there were significant increases in alpha prefrontal–frontal connectivity (peak = 0.201 [0.154, 0.248]; P < 0.001), theta prefrontal–frontal connectivity (peak = 0.137 [0.091, 0.182]; P < 0.001), and theta frontal–parietal connectivity (peak = 0.128 [0.084, 0.173]; P < 0.001) during anesthetic maintenance. Additionally, shifts occurred between states of high prefrontal–frontal connectivity (alpha, beta) with suppressed frontal–parietal connectivity, and high frontal–parietal connectivity (alpha, theta) with reduced prefrontal–frontal connectivity. These shifts occurred in a nonrandom manner (P < 0.05 compared to random transitions), suggesting structured transitions of connectivity during general anesthesia. Conclusions Functional connectivity patterns dynamically shift during surgery and general anesthesia but do so in a structured way. Thus, a single measure of functional connectivity will likely not be a reliable correlate of surgical anesthesia.

Background: Cognitive training is beneficial in various clinical settings, although its perioperative feasibility and impact remain unknown. The objective of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of home-based cognitive prehabilitation before major surgery in older adults.Materials and Methods: Sixty-one patients were enrolled, randomized, and allocated to either a home-based preoperative cognitive training regimen or no training before surgery. Outcomes included postoperative delirium incidence (primary outcome; assessed with the 3D-Confusion Assessment Method), perioperative cognitive function based on NIH Toolbox measures, hospital length of stay, and physical therapy session participation. Reasons for declining enrollment were reported, as were reasons for opting out of the training program.Results: Postoperative delirium incidence was 6 of 23 (26%) in the prehabilitation group compared with 5 of 29 (17%) in the control group (P = 0.507). There were no significant differences between groups in NIH Toolbox cognitive function scoring, hospital length of stay, or physical therapy participation rates. Study feasibility data were also collected and reported. The most common reasons for declining enrollment were lack of computer access (n = 19), time commitment (n = 9), and feeling overwhelmed (n = 9). In the training group, only 5 of 29 (17%) included patients were able to complete the prescribed 7 days of training, and 14 of 29 (48%) opted out of training once home. Most common reasons were feeling overwhelmed (n = 4) and computer difficulties (n = 3).Conclusions: Short-term, home-based cognitive training before surgery is unlikely to be feasible for many older patients. Barriers to training include feeling overwhelmed, technical issues with training, and preoperative time commitment.

ObjectiveTo characterise the clinical course of delirium for patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, including postdischarge neuropsychological outcomes.DesignRetrospective chart review and prospective survey study.SettingIntensive care units, large academic tertiary-care centre (USA).ParticipantsPatients (n=148) with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit at Michigan Medicine between 1 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 were eligible for inclusion.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDelirium was the primary outcome, assessed via validated chart review method. Secondary outcomes included measures related to delirium, such as delirium duration, antipsychotic use, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, inflammatory markers and final disposition. Neuroimaging data were also collected. Finally, a telephone survey was conducted between 1 and 2 months after discharge to determine neuropsychological function via the following tests: Family Confusion Assessment Method, Short Blessed Test, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Cognitive Abilities 4a and Patient-Health Questionnaire-9.ResultsDelirium was identified in 108/148 (73%) patients, with median (IQR) duration lasting 10 (4–17) days. In the delirium cohort, 50% (54/108) of patients were African American and delirious patients were more likely to be female (76/108, 70%) (absolute standardised differences >0.30). Sedation regimens, inflammation, delirium prevention protocol deviations and hypoxic-ischaemic injury were likely contributing factors, and the most common disposition for delirious patients was a skilled care facility (41/108, 38%). Among patients who were delirious during hospitalisation, 4/17 (24%) later screened positive for delirium at home based on caretaker assessment, 5/22 (23%) demonstrated signs of questionable cognitive impairment or cognitive impairment consistent with dementia and 3/25 (12%) screened positive for depression within 2 months after discharge.ConclusionPatients with COVID-19 commonly experience a prolonged course of delirium in the intensive care unit, likely with multiple contributing factors. Furthermore, neuropsychological impairment may persist after discharge.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients are vulnerable to opioid dependency and related risks. Clinical-translational data suggest that caffeine may enhance postoperative analgesia. This trial tested the hypothesis that intraoperative caffeine would reduce postoperative opioid consumption. The secondary objective was to assess whether caffeine improves neuropsychological recovery postoperatively. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Participants, clinicians, research teams, and data analysts were all blinded to the intervention. Adult (≥18 years old) surgical patients (n = 65) presenting for laparoscopic colorectal and gastrointestinal surgery were randomized to an intravenous caffeine citrate infusion (200 mg) or dextrose 5% in water (40 mL) during surgical closure. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption through postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes included subjective pain reporting, observer-reported pain, delirium, Trail Making Test performance, depression and anxiety screens, and affect scores. Adverse events were reported, and hemodynamic profiles were also compared between the groups. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the final analysis, with 30 randomized to each group. The median (interquartile range) cumulative opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents, milligrams) was 77 mg (33–182 mg) for caffeine and 51 mg (15–117 mg) for placebo (estimated difference, 55 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI], −9 to 118; P = .092). After post hoc adjustment for baseline imbalances, caffeine was associated with increased opioid consumption (87 mg; 95% CI, 26–148; P = .005). There were otherwise no differences in prespecified pain or neuropsychological outcomes between the groups. No major adverse events were reported in relation to caffeine, and no major hemodynamic perturbations were observed with caffeine administration. CONCLUSIONS: Caffeine appears unlikely to reduce early postoperative opioid consumption. Caffeine otherwise appears well tolerated during anesthetic emergence.

Background: Stroke is a devastating perioperative complication without effective methods for prevention or diagnosis. The objective of this study was to analyze evidence-based strategies for detecting cerebrovascular vulnerability and injury in a high-risk cohort of non-cardiac surgery patients. Methods: This was a single-center, prospective cohort study. Fifty patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were recruited −25 with known cerebrovascular disease and 25 matched controls. Neurologic vulnerability was measured with intraoperative cerebral oximetry as the primary outcome. Perioperative neurocognitive testing and serum biomarker analysis (S-100β, neuron specific enolase, glial fibrillary acid protein, and matrix metalloproteinase-9) were measured as secondary outcomes. Results: Cerebral desaturation events (an oximetry decrease ≥20% from baseline or <50% absolute value for ≥3 min) occurred in 7/24 (29%) cerebrovascular disease patients and 2/24 (8.3%) controls (relative risk 3.5, 95% CI 0.81–15.2; P = 0.094). Cognitive function trends were similar in both groups, though overall scores (range: 1,500–7,197) were ~1 standard deviation lower in cerebrovascular patients across the entire perioperative period (−1,049 [95% CI −1,662, −436], P < 0.001). No significant serum biomarker differences were found between groups over time. One control patient experienced intraoperative hypoxic-ischemic injury, but no robust biomarker or oximetry changes were observed. Conclusions: Cerebrovascular disease patients did not demonstrate dramatic differences in cerebral oximetry, cognitive trajectory, or molecular biomarkers compared to controls. Moreover, a catastrophic hypoxic-ischemic event was neither predicted nor detected by any strategy tested. These findings support the need for novel research into cerebrovascular risk and vulnerability.