An open label pilot study of a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil-caudal anesthetic for infant lower abdominal/lower extremity surgery: The T REX pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Concern over potential neurotoxicity of anesthetics has led to growing interest in prospective clinical trials using potentially less toxic anesthetic regimens, especially for prolonged anesthesia in infants. Preclinical studies suggest that dexmedetomidine may have a reduced neurotoxic profile compared to other conventional anesthetic regimens; however, coadministration with either anesthetic drugs (eg, remifentanil) and/or regional blockade is required to achieve adequate anesthesia for surgery. The feasibility of this pharmacological approach is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a remifentanil/dexmedetomidine/neuraxial block technique in infants scheduled for surgery lasting longer than 2 hours. METHODS: Sixty infants (age 1-12 months) were enrolled at seven centers over 18 months. A caudal local anesthetic block was placed after induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane. Next, an infusion of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil commenced, and the sevoflurane was discontinued. Three different protocols with escalating doses of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were used. RESULTS: One infant was excluded due to a protocol violation and consent was withdrawn prior to anesthesia in another. The caudal block was unsuccessful in two infants. Of the 56 infants who completed the protocol, 45 (80%) had at least one episode of hypertension (mean arterial pressure >80 mm Hg) and/or movement that required adjusting the anesthesia regimen. In the majority of these cases, the remifentanil and/or dexmedetomidine doses were increased although six infants required rescue 0.3% sevoflurane and one required a propofol bolus. Ten infants had at least one episode of mild hypotension (mean arterial pressure 40-50 mm Hg) and four had at least one episode of moderate hypotension (mean arterial pressure <40 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: A dexmedetomidine/remifentanil neuraxial anesthetic regimen was effective in 87.5% of infants. These findings can be used as a foundation for designing larger trials that assess alternative anesthetic regimens for anesthetic neurotoxicity in infants.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring team's communiqué with anesthesia professionals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is the standard of care during many spinal, vascular, and intracranial surgeries. High-quality perioperative care requires the communication and cooperation of several multidisciplinary teams. One of these multidisciplinary services is intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM), while other teams represent anesthesia and surgery. Few studies have investigated the IONM team's objective communication with anesthesia providers. We conducted a retrospective review of IONM-related quality assurance data to identify how changes in the evoked potentials observed during the surgery were communicated within our IONM-anesthesia team and determined the resulting qualitative outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Quality assurance records of 3,112 patients who underwent surgical procedures with IONM (from 2010 to 2015) were reviewed. We examined communications regarding perioperative evoked potential or electroencephalography (EEG) fluctuations that prompted neurophysiologists to alert/notify the anesthesia team to consider alteration of anesthetic depth/drug regimen or patient positioning and analyzed the outcomes of these interventions. RESULTS: Of the total of 1280 (41.13%) communications issued, there were 347 notifications and 11 alerts made by the neurophysiologist to the anesthesia team for various types of neuro/orthopedic surgeries. Prompt communication led to resolution of 90% of alerts and 80% of notifications after corrective measures were executed by the anesthesiologists. Notifications mainly related to limb malpositioning and extravasation of intravenous fluid. CONCLUSION: Based on our institutions' protocol and algorithm for intervention during IONM-supported surgeries, our findings of resolution in alerts and notifications indicate that successful communications between the two teams could potentially lead to improved anesthetic care and patient safety.

Implementing checklists in the operating room.

Checklists have established themselves as a key safety process in the operating room environment. This paper describes the background and context of how checklists have evolved in medicine. It also highlights ongoing challenges with particular attention to the importance of nontechnical skills or human factors training with relation to checklist design, testing and implementation and ongoing coaching.

A comparison of inhalational inductions for children in the operating room vs the induction room.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate about the use of an induction room (IR) compared with an operating room (OR) for inhalational induction in children. The quality of the anesthesia induction between these two physical environments has not been studied previously. We sought to compare child distress, OR utilization and efficiency, and parental satisfaction and safety, between an IR and an OR. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, we studied 501 developmentally appropriate children ages 1-14 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, presenting for the inhalational induction of anesthesia, undergoing outpatient or outpatient-admit ENT surgery. Inductions were performed in an IR (IR group) or OR (OR group) with parent(s) present. Child behavioral compliance was assessed using the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC), a validated observational scale from 0 to 10 consisting of 10 behaviors; an ICC score ≥4 was considered poor behavioral compliance. Times for transport, anesthesia start, ready for surgery, surgery finish, out of OR, and total case process times were recorded. OR utilization and OR efficiency was derived using these times. Data on number and experience of clinical providers were also collected. Parent satisfaction with the induction was measured using a satisfaction survey. Safety was measured by recording respiratory complications during induction. The chi-squared test was conducted to determine whether induction location was associated with level of behavioral compliance. A multivariable proportional odds model was used to control for risk factors. OR utilization and efficiency were analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in ICC scores between the groups (P-value = 0.12). Anesthesia, nonoperative, and transport time were statistically less in the OR group when compared with the IR group, although total case process times were similar in both groups. While OR efficiency was significantly higher for the OR group (P-value = 0.0096), OR utilization did not differ between groups (P-value = 0.288). The OR group had a significantly higher number of anesthesia providers and a more experienced surgical team. Parents in the two groups were equally satisfied with their experience during induction, and none of the subjects had respiratory complications during the anesthesia induction. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences in child distress, parent satisfaction, and respiratory complications between inductions conducted in the IR vs the OR. Differences in utilization, efficiency, and turnover were minimal and not operationally significant. Capital equipment, space, and staffing strategies should be key drivers in considerations for the use of IRs, and in the design of ORs with IRs.