Intraoperative Anesthesiology Management and Patient Outcomes for Surgical Revascularization for Moyamoya Disease: A Review and Clinical Experience.

BACKGROUND: Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a rare cerebrovascular condition, often presenting as a headache or stroke in adults. Anesthetic management of this illness may challenge providers because it can affect the long-term neurologic outcome and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients with MMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to assess etiology and epidemiology, as well as existing reports of intraoperative management of MMD. Due to sparse findings, the search was expanded to include studies of the use of intraoperative anesthetic agents during other neurosurgical procedures. We also retrospectively reviewed all MMD cases from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015, at Memorial Hermann Hospital-Texas Medical Center, where intraoperative management involved craniotomy and surgical revascularization. Data were collected primarily on the use of several anesthetic agents. The LOS and any adverse events were also recorded for each case. The data were divided into two equivalent case cohorts: (1) January 1, 2009, to February 18, 2013, and (2) February 19, 2013, to December 31, 2015. RESULTS: Remifentanil use notably increased between the first and second time periods while fentanyl use decreased. Desflurane usage also demonstrated an observed increase when our two cohorts were compared. Additionally, there was a decrease in the mean LOS between the first and second periods of 3.9 and 3.3 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: Increasing use of remifentanil in MMD cases could be attributed to its ability to provide more stable hemodynamics during induction, maintenance, and emergence of anesthesia when compared with fentanyl. Lower systolic pressures, diastolic pressures, and heart rates were reported in patients receiving remifentanil over fentanyl.

Scheduled Intravenous Acetaminophen Improves Patient Satisfaction With Postcraniotomy Pain Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Postcraniotomy pain can be difficult to manage with opioids due to opioid-related side effects, including drowsiness, nausea/vomiting, confusion, and pupillary changes, potentially masking the signs of postoperative neurological deterioration. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, a nonopioid analgesic, has been reported to have opioid-sparing effects after abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. This study investigates whether IV acetaminophen has similar effects after craniotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, 100 adult patients scheduled to undergo supratentorial craniotomy for excision of a brain mass were randomized to receive either IV acetaminophen or placebo preincision and then every 6 hours for a total of 24 hours after surgery. Total 24-hour opioid consumption, pain scores, satisfaction with overall pain management, time to meet postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria, and incidence of opioid-related side effects were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in the 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption in morphine equivalents between the IV acetaminophen group (median, 11 mg; n=45) and the placebo group (median, 10.1 mg; n=41). No statistically significant difference of visual analog scale pain score was observed between 2 treatment groups. Patient satisfaction with overall postoperative pain management was significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group than the placebo group on a 1 to 10 scale (8.1±0.4 vs. 6.9±0.4; P=0.03). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes, including the incidence of opioid-related side effects. CONCLUSIONS: IV acetaminophen, as adjunctive therapy for craniotomy procedures, did not show an opioid-sparing effect in patients for the 24 hours after craniotomy; however, it was associated with improved patient satisfaction regarding overall pain control.

Flexible optical intubation via the Ambu Aura-i vs blind intubation via the single-use LMA Fastrach: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the Ambu Aura-i to the single-use LMA Fastrach regarding time to intubation, success rate, and airway morbidity in patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Sixty-five adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n=33) were intubated using Ambu Aura-i and the Ambu aScope 2, a disposable flexible intubating scope, whereas those in group B (n=33) were blindly intubated using the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA). MEASUREMENTS: First-attempt intubation success rate, overall intubation success rate, time to intubation, incidence of airway morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: The data demonstrated that time for endotracheal intubation in the ILMA group was significantly shorter than in the Ambu Aura-i group (P<.05). There was no difference in the first-attempt intubation success rate (Aura-i=26/33, 78.8%; ILMA=27/33, 81.8%; P=.757) or the overall intubation success rate (Aura-i=29/33, 87.9%; ILMA=31/33, 93.9%; P=.392) between the groups. Four patients (12%) in the Ambu Aura-i group had a failed intubation; 1 was due to a failure of the aScope monitor, whereas 3 were due to inability to visualize the glottis. Two patients (7%) in the ILMA group had a failed intubation due to esophageal intubation. There was no statistically significant difference in airway morbidity between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that intubation with the ILMA is faster but that first-attempt and overall intubation success rates were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that although the flexible intubating scope-guided Aura-i does not outperform blind intubation via the ILMA, the technique is comparable in terms of first-attempt and overall intubation success rate.

Dexmedetomidine versus Remifentanil for Sedation during Awake Fiberoptic Intubation.

This study compared remifentanil and dexmedetomidine as awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) anesthetics. Thirty-four adult ASA I-III patients were enrolled in a double-blinded randomized pilot study to receive remifentanil (REM) or dexmedetomidine (DEX) for sedation during AFOI (nasal and oral). Thirty patients completed the study and received 2 mg midazolam IV and topical anesthesia. The REM group received a loading dose of 0.75 mcg/kg followed by an infusion of 0.075 mcg/kg/min. The DEX group received a loading dose of 0.4 mcg/kg followed by an infusion of 0.7 mcg/kg/hr. Time to sedation, number of intubation attempts, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) score, bispectral index (BIS), and memory recall were recorded. All thirty patients were successfully intubated by AFOI (22 oral intubations/8 nasal). First attempt success rate with AFOI was higher in the REM group than the DEX group, 72% and 38% (P = 0.02), respectively. The DEX group took longer to attain RSS of ≥3 and to achieve BIS <80, as compared to the REM group. Postloading dose verbal recall was poorer in the DEX group. Dexmedetomidine seems a useful adjunct for patients undergoing AFOI but is dependent on dosage and time. Further studies in the use of dexmedetomidine for AFOI are warranted.