Performing real time neuropsychological testing during awake craniotomy: are dexmedetomidine or propofol the same? A preliminary report.

PURPOSE: In awake surgery, the patient is sedated, but is also required to be sufficiently alert and collaborative during extensive neurocognitive testing. In the present preliminary report of a retrospective single-center study, a continuous series of 168 patients who underwent awake surgery for brain tumor located near eloquent areas, was investigated to observe the effect of dexmedetomidine (n = 58) compared with propofol (n = 110) on vigilance and collaboration required to perform extensive intra-operatory Real Time Neuropsychological Testing (RTNT). METHODS: We assigned a score to each patient, by using a scale that combines vigilance and collaboration in a 5 levels score (the higher score denoting higher level). RESULTS: The median interquartile range was significantly lower (range 3-5) for the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol one (range 4-5, p = .044). Patients with intra-operative seizures (p = .014) and/or electrocorticographic slow/epileptiform activity (p = .042), and patients in the propofol group who showed increased heart rate (p = .032) were those who obtained the lower scores (lower vigilance and collaboration level). CONCLUSION: The study shows that the effect of dexmedetomidine or propofol -based conscious sedation on ability to perform Real Time Neuropsychological Testing during awake surgery for supratentorial tumor resection is different. Although both permit high mean levels of vigilance and collaboration, the patient who received dexmedetomidine was more likely to show lower vigilance and collaboration during RTNT.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol on Intraoperative Seizure Onset During Awake Craniotomy: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with propofol on intraoperative seizures (IOSs) detected using electrocorticography during awake craniotomy for resection of brain tumors is unknown. This investigation aimed to compare IOS rate in patients receiving DEX versus propofol as sedative agent. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, awake craniotomies performed from January 2014 to December 2019 were analyzed. All IOSs detected by electrocorticography along with vital signs were recorded. RESULTS: Of 168 adults enrolled in the study, 58 were administered DEX and 110 were administered propofol. IOSs occurred more frequently in the DEX group (22%) versus the propofol group (11%) (P = 0.046). A higher incidence of bradycardia was also observed in the DEX group (P < 0.001). Higher incidence of hypertension and a higher mean heart rate were recorded in the propofol group (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). No serious adverse events requiring active drug administration were noted in either group. At univariate regression analysis, DEX demonstrated a tendency to favor IOS onset but without statistical significance (odds ratio = 2.36, P = 0.051). Patients in both groups had a similar epilepsy outcome at the 1-year postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: IOSs detected with electrocorticography during awake craniotomy occurred more frequently in patients receiving DEX than propofol. However, patients receiving DEX were not shown to be at a statistically significant greater risk for IOS onset. DEX is a valid alternative to propofol during awake craniotomy in patients affected by tumor-related epilepsy.

Can Lung Ultrasound Be the Ideal Monitoring Tool to Predict the Clinical Outcome of Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients? An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, lung ultrasound (LUS) has been widely used since it can be performed at the patient's bedside, does not produce ionizing radiation, and is sufficiently accurate. The LUS score allows for quantifying lung involvement; however, its clinical prognostic role is still controversial. METHODS: A retrospective observational study on 103 COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure that were assessed with an LUS score at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and discharge in a tertiary university COVID-19 referral center. RESULTS: The deceased patients had a higher LUS score at admission than the survivors (25.7 vs. 23.5; p-value = 0.02; cut-off value of 25; Odds Ratio (OR) 1.1; Interquartile Range (IQR) 1.0-1.2). The predictive regression model shows that the value of LUSt0 (OR 1.1; IQR 1.0-1.3), age (OR 1.1; IQR 1.0-1.2), sex (OR 0.7; IQR 0.2-3.6), and days in spontaneous breathing (OR 0.2; IQR 0.1-0.5) predict the risk of death for COVID-19 patients (Area under the Curve (AUC) 0.92). Furthermore, the surviving patients showed a significantly lower difference between LUS scores at admission and discharge (mean difference of 1.75, p-value = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Upon entry into the ICU, the LUS score may play a prognostic role in COVID-19 patients with ARDS. Furthermore, employing the LUS score as a monitoring tool allows for evaluating the patients with a higher probability of survival.

Perioperative management of spinal cord injury: the anesthesiologist's point of view.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most devastating events a person can experience. It may be life-threatening or result in long-term disability. This narrative review aims to delineate a systematic step-wise airways, breathing, circulation and disability (ABCD) approach to perioperative patient management during spinal cord surgery in order to fill some of the gaps in our current knowledge. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the perioperative management of traumatic spinal injuries from May 15, 2020, to December 13, 2020. We consulted the PubMed and Embase database libraries. RESULTS: Videolaryngoscopy supplements the armamentarium available for airway management. Optical fiberscope use should be evaluated when intubating awake patients. Respiratory complications are frequent in the acute phase of traumatic spinal injury, with an estimated incidence of 36-83%. Early tracheostomy can be considered for expected difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation. Careful intraoperative management of administered fluids should be pursued to avoid complications from volume overload. Neuromonitoring requires investments in staff training and cooperation, but better outcomes have been obtained in centers where it is routinely applied. The prone position can cause rare but devastating complications, such as ischemic optic neuropathy; thus, the anesthetist should take the utmost care in positioning the patient. CONCLUSIONS: A one-size fit all approach to spinal surgery patients is not applicable due to patient heterogeneity and the complexity of the procedures involved. The neurologic outcome of spinal surgery can be improved, and the incidence of complications reduced with better knowledge of patient-specific aspects and individualized perioperative management.