The Utility of COMPASS-31 Questionnaire to Predict Autonomic Dysfunction in Patients With Cervical/Upper Thoracic Compressive Myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical/upper thoracic compressive myelopathy may have autonomic dysfunction. The composite autonomic severity score (CASS) is the gold standard test to detect autonomic dysfunction, and the self-rated composite autonomic system scale (COMPASS-31) questionnaire is a screening tool to diagnose autonomic dysfunction. This study compared the COMPASS-31 and modified CASS scores for the detection of autonomic dysfunction in patients with compressive myelopathy. METHODS: Patients with cervical/upper thoracic compressive myelopathy scheduled for decompressive surgery completed a COMPASS-31 questionnaire and underwent autonomic function tests to calculate the modified CASS score before surgery. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included in the study; 19 (45.2%) had mild autonomic dysfunction, 5 (11.9%) had moderate autonomic dysfunction, and 18 (42.9%) had severe autonomic dysfunction. Median (interquartile range) of modified CASS and COMPASS-31 scores were 19 (6.33) and 3 (2.5), respectively. There was a positive correlation between modified CASS and COMPASS-31 scores ( r =0.43; P =0.004). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis confirmed that COMPASS-31 had fair accuracy for prediction of moderate to severe autonomic dysfunction (area under the curve, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.82; P =0.009). A cut-off of 30 for total COMPASS-31 score had a sensitivity of 52.2% and specificity of 89.5% to detect moderate to severe autonomic dysfunction, with positive and negative predictive values of 85.7% and 60.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with cervical/upper thoracic compressive myelopathy had varying degrees of autonomic dysfunction based on the modified CASS. There was a positive correlation between the modified CASS and COMPASS-31 questionnaire. A COMPASS-31 score of >30 30 could be utilized to predict moderate to severe autonomic dysfunction in patients with compressive myelopathy.

An observational case-control study comparing the recovery profile in patients receiving additional dose of anticonvulsant vs. regular dose during supratentorial craniotomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anticonvulsants are used routinely for seizure prophylaxis in patients with supratentorial tumour who present with/without seizures. Excessive use of prophylactic anticonvulsant may delay the recovery from anaesthesia. We have studied the recovery profiles of patients who received an additional dose of anticonvulsant in comparison with those who received only the regular dose. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients were anaesthetised using standard anaesthesia protocol. An additional dose of anticonvulsant was administered in one group, while the other group received only the regular dose. Time taken for extubation, eye opening, obeying commands and orientation were compared between the two groups. Haemodynamics, depth of anaesthesia, the plasma anticonvulsant levels and the incidence of seizures were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were studied, of which 19 received regular dose and 17 received an additional dose. There was no significant difference in recovery time between the two groups. Subgroup analysis was performed for phenytoin and sodium valproate. There was a clinically significant delay in recovery in patients who received an additional phenytoin compared to those who received regular dose (time to obey commands >15 min and orientation time >1hour) but, it was not statistically significant. Administration of an additional dose of valproate did not prolong the recovery time. CONCLUSION: An additional dose of sodium valproate did not cause a delay in recovery both, clinically and statistically. However, the administration of an additional dose of phenytoin caused a clinically significant delay in recovery but was not statistically significant.