Management of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in the peri-operative period: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists.

Vagus nerve stimulation is a well-established treatment option for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and has an expanding range of other clinical indications. Side effects of vagus nerve stimulation therapy include: cough; voice changes; vocal cord adduction; rarely, obstructive sleep apnoea; and arrhythmia. Patients with implanted vagus nerve stimulation devices may present for unrelated surgery and critical care to clinicians who are unfamiliar with their function and safe management. These guidelines have been formulated by multidisciplinary consensus based on case reports, case series and expert opinion to support clinicians in the management of patients with these devices. The aim is to provide specific guidance on the management of vagus nerve stimulation devices in the following scenarios: the peri-operative period; peripartum period; during critical illness; and in the MRI suite. Patients should be aware of the importance of carrying their personal vagus nerve stimulation device magnet with them at all times to facilitate urgent device deactivation if necessary. We advise that it is generally safer to formally deactivate vagus nerve stimulation devices before general and spinal anaesthesia. During periods of critical illness associated with haemodynamic instability, we also advise cessation of vagus nerve stimulation and early consultation with neurology services.

Brain biopsies requiring Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease precautions in the Republic of Ireland 2005-2016.

AIMS: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) risk precautions are required when performing brain biopsies on patients with a dementing illness and in 'risk' groups. The impact on a diagnostic neuropathology service is considerable. We sought to determine if better case selection might reduce the necessity for application of CJD risk precautions. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical information, contributory investigations and final neuropathologic diagnosis in a cohort of patients (n = 21), referred to the National CJD Surveillance Centre between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. RESULTS: Of this 21-patient cohort, five were positive for CJD, four belonged to the 'at risk of CJD' category requiring brain surgery, while the remaining 12 were referred to the National CJD Surveillance Unit with CJD as part of their differential diagnosis. CJD was confirmed in 5/21 (three sporadic [s]CJD, one variant [v]CJD and one iatrogenic [i] CJD). CJD was clinically probable in 4/5 proven CJD patients (80%). The patients (n = 4) in the 'at risk of CJD' group were diagnosed with tumour (n = 2), inflammation (n = 1) and non-specific changes (n = 1). Of the remaining 12 patients (in whom CJD was included in the differential diagnosis), the final neuropathologic diagnoses included tumour (n = 2), neurodegenerative (n = 2), inflammatory (n = 1), metabolic (n = 2), vascular (n = 2) and non-specific gliosis (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: More often than not, the clinical suspicion of CJD was not borne out by the final neuropathological diagnosis. Failure by clinicians to adhere to the recommended CJD investigation algorithm impacts adversely on the neuropathology workload and causes unnecessary concern among operating theatre, laboratory and nursing personnel.