Alternate Electrode Placements to Facilitate Frontal Electroencephalography Monitoring in Anesthetized and Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Frontal electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring can be useful in guiding the titration of anesthetics, but it is not always feasible to place electrodes in the standard configuration in some circumstances, including during neurosurgery. This study compares 5 alternate configurations of the Masimo Sedline Sensor. METHODS: Ten stably sedated patients in the intensive care unit were recruited. Frontal EEG was monitored in the standard configuration (bifrontal upright) and 5 alternate configurations: bifrontal inverse, infraorbital, lateral upright, lateral inverse, and semilateral. Average power spectral densities (PSDs) with 95% CIs in the alternate configurations were compared to PSDs in the standard configuration. Two-one-sided-testing with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed equivalence in the spectral edge frequency (SEF-95), EEG power, and relative delta (0.5 to 3.5 Hz), alpha (8 to 12 Hz), and beta (20 to 30 Hz) power between each alternate and standard configurations. RESULTS: After the removal of unanalyzable tracings, 7 patients were included for analysis in the infraorbital configuration and 9 in all other configurations. In the lateral upright and lateral inverse configurations, PSDs significantly differed from the standard configuration within the 15 to 20 Hz band. The greatest decrease in EEG power was in the lateral inverse configuration (median: -97 dB; IQR: -130, -62 dB). The largest change in frequency distribution of EEG power was in the infraorbital configuration; median SEF-95 change of -1.4 Hz (IQR: -2.8, 0.7 Hz), median relative delta power change of +7.3% (IQR: 1.4%, 7.9%), and median relative alpha power change of -0.6% (IQR: -5.7%, 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: These 5 alternate Sedline electrode configurations are suitable options for monitoring frontal EEG when the standard configuration is not possible.

Current Recommendations for Perioperative Brain Health: A Scoping Review.

Perioperative complications such as stroke, delirium, and neurocognitive dysfunction are common and responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to characterize and synthesize the contemporary guidelines on perioperative brain health for noncardiac, non-neurologic surgery in a scoping review. We performed a structured search for articles providing recommendations on brain health published between 2016 and 2021 and included the following complications: perioperative stroke and perioperative neurocognitive disorders, the latter of which encompasses postoperative delirium and a spectrum of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. We categorized recommendations by subtopic (stroke, postoperative delirium, postoperative cognitive dysfunction), type (disclosure/ethics/policies, prevention, risk stratification, screening/diagnosis, and management), and pharmacological versus nonpharmacological strategies. We noted country of origin, specialty of the authors, evidence grade (if available), and concordance/discordance between recommendations. Eight publications provided 129 recommendations, originating from the United States (n=5), Europe (n=1), United Kingdom (n=1), and China (n=1). Three publications (37%) applied grading of evidence as follows: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE): A, 30%; B, 36%; C, 30%; D, 4%. We identified 42 instances of concordant recommendations (≥2 publications) on 15 themes, including risk factor identification, risk disclosure, baseline neurocognitive testing, nonpharmacological perioperative neurocognitive disorder prevention, intraoperative monitoring to prevent perioperative neurocognitive disorders, avoidance of benzodiazepines, delaying elective surgery after stroke, and emergency imaging and rapid restoration of cerebral perfusion after perioperative stroke. We identified 19 instances of discordant recommendations on 7 themes, including the use of regional anesthesia and monitoring for perioperative stroke prevention, pharmacological perioperative neurocognitive disorder management, and postoperative stroke screening. We synthesized recommendations for clinical practice and highlighted areas where high-quality evidence is required to inform best practices in perioperative brain health.

Opioid Alternatives in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Adequate analgesia is known to improve outcomes after spine surgery. Despite recent attention highlighting the negative effects of narcotics and their addiction potential, opioids have been the mainstay of management for providing analgesia following spine surgeries. However, side effects including hyperalgesia, tolerance, and subsequent dependence restrict the generous usage of opioids. Multimodal analgesia regimens acting through different mechanisms offer significant opioid sparing and minimize the side effects of individual drugs. Hence, they are being increasingly incorporated into enhanced recovery protocols. Multimodal analgesia includes drugs such as N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and membrane-stabilizing agents, neuraxial opioids, local anesthetic infiltration, and fascial compartment blocks. Analgesia started before the painful stimulus, termed preemptive analgesia, facilitates subsequent pain management. Both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and neuraxial analgesia have been conclusively shown to reduce opioid requirements after spine surgery, and there is a resurgence of interest in the use of low-dose ketamine or methadone. Neuraxial narcotics offer enhanced analgesia for a longer duration with lower dosage and side effect profiles compared with systemic opioid administration. Fascial compartment blocks are increasingly used as they provide effective analgesia with fewer adverse effects. In this narrative review, we will discuss multimodality analgesic regimens incorporating opioid-sparing adjuvants to manage pain after spine surgery.

Chronic Use of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and/or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers is Not Associated With Stroke After Noncardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone pathways reduces blood pressure and proliferation of vascular smooth muscles and may therefore reduce the risk of stroke. We tested the hypothesis that patients taking angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for at least 6 months have fewer postoperative strokes after non-neurological, noncarotid, and noncardiac surgeries than those who do not. METHODS: We considered adults who had noncardiac surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2005 and December 2017. After excluding neurological and carotid surgeries, we assessed the confounder-adjusted association between chronic use of ACEIs/ARBs (during 6 preoperative months) and the incidence of postoperative stroke using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Postoperative strokes occurred in 0.26% (27/10,449) of patients who were chronic ACEI/ARBs users and in 0.18% (112/62,771) of those who were not. There was no significant association between ACEI/ARB use and postoperative stroke, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.44; P =0.24). Secondarily, there was no association between exposures to ACEIs and postoperative stroke, versus no such exposure (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI: 0.65-1.19; P =0.33). Similarly, there was no association between exposure to ARBs and postoperative stroke, versus no such exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI: 0.75-1.48; P =0.75). CONCLUSION: We did not detect an effect of chronic ACEI/ARB use on postoperative strokes in patients who had non-neurological, noncarotid and noncardiac surgery; however, power was extremely limited.

Standardization of Neuroanesthesia Education: Need of the Hour and the Way Forward.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review illustrates the evolution and progress with standardization of fellowship education in neuroanesthesiology. It provides a structured discussion around the need for curricula and framework which individual training programs in neuroanesthesiology can use to meet defined educational standards thus meeting criteria for accreditation. RECENT FINDINGS: Neuroanesthesiology training has traditionally been heterogenous around the world but international efforts from the community of neuroanesthesiology have culminated in the development of an international council for perioperative training in neuroscience in anesthesiology(ICPNT). This serves not only as an accrediting body but also creates a platform through their neuroanesthesia program relations committee for collaboration and engagement between various training programs internationally, increasing the educational standards of the individual programs and collectively increasing the overall level of standards for neuroanesthesia training. Standardized curriculum and competency-based assessments and milestones would help with narrowing the focus to quality education in neuroanesthesiology. SUMMARY: Structured training around the three pillars of neuroanesthesiology with concomitant accreditation is expected to lead to higher education standards with better patient care. The SNACC created milestones for neuroanesthesiology training during residency and the ICPNT can now use this as a foundation for fellowship training. Having a council to accredit and standardize will likely become indispensable in creating a set path for training in neuroanesthesiology. Additionally, the flexibility built in due to the international nature would allow modified and variable pathways depending upon individual capabilities and interests. The path forward will include widespread adoption of standardization supporting the overarching goal of excellent patient outcomes around the world.

Perceived Benefits and Barriers to a Career in Neuroanesthesiology: A Pilot Survey of Anesthesiology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in perioperative neuroscience, there is low interest among anesthesiology trainees to pursue subspecialty training in neuroanesthesiology. We conducted a pilot survey to assess attitudes about neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A confidential survey was distributed to an international cohort of anesthesiology attendings and trainees between January 15, 2017 and February 26, 2017. RESULTS: A total of 463 responses were received. Overall, 309 (67%), 30 (6%), 116 (25%), and 8 (2%) of respondents identified themselves as attendings, fellows, residents, and "other," respectively. In total, 390 (84%) of respondents were from the United States. Individuals typically pursue anesthesiology fellowship training because of interest in the subspecialty, acquisition of a special skill set, and the role of fellowship training in career planning and advancement. Overall, 64% of attendings, 56% of fellows, and 55% of residents favored accreditation of neuroanesthesiology fellowships, although opinion was divided regarding the role of accreditation in increasing interest in the specialty. Respondents believe that increased opportunities for research and greater exposure to neurocritical care and neurological monitoring methods would increase interest in neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Perceived barriers to neuroanesthesiology fellowship training were perceptions that residency provides adequate training in neuroanesthesiology, that a unique skill set is not acquired, and that there are limited job opportunities available to those with neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot survey, we identified several factors that trainees consider when deciding to undertake subspecialty training and barriers that might limit interest in pursuing neuroanesthesiology subspecialty training. Our findings may be used to guide curricular development and identify factors that might increase interest among trainees in pursuing neuroanesthesiology fellowship training.

The Impact of the Global SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Neuroanesthesiology Fellowship Programs Worldwide and the Potential Future Role for ICPNT Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an international crisis placing tremendous strain on medical systems around the world. Like other specialties, neuroanesthesiology has been adversely affected and training programs have had to quickly adapt to the constantly changing environment. METHODS: An email-based survey was used to evaluate the effects of the pandemic on clinical workflow, clinical training, education, and trainee well-being. The impact of the International Council on Perioperative Neuroscience Training (ICPNT) accreditation was also assessed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 program directors (88% response rate) in 10 countries and from 36 fellows in these programs. Clinical training was adversely affected because of the cancellation of elective neurosurgery and other changes in case workflow, the introduction of modified airway and other protocols, and redeployment of trainees to other sites. To address educational demands, most programs utilized online platforms to organize clinical discussions, journal clubs, and provide safety training modules. Several initiatives were introduced to support trainee well-being during the pandemic. Feelings of isolation and despair among trainees varied from 2 to 8 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Fellows all reported concerns that their clinical training had been adversely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of decreased exposure to elective subspecialty cases and limited opportunities to complete workplace-based assessments and training portfolio requirements. Cancellation of examination preparation courses and delayed examinations were cited as common sources of stress. Programs accredited by the ICPNT reported that international networking and collaboration was beneficial to reduce feelings of isolation during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Neuroanesthesia fellowship training program directors introduced innovative ways to maintain clinical training, educational activity and trainee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association Between Preoperative Statin Use and Respiratory Complications After Noncardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins possess pleiotropic effects, which potentially benefit noncardiovascular conditions. Previous work suggests that statins reduce inflammation and prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and infections. However, there is a paucity of data regarding potential benefits of statins on respiratory and infectious complications, particularly after noncardiac surgery. We therefore evaluated respiratory and other complications in noncardiac surgery patients taking or not taking statins preoperatively. METHODS: We obtained data from the Cleveland Clinic Perioperative Health Documentation System and evaluated medical records of 92,139 inpatients who had noncardiac surgery. Among these, 31,719 patients took statins preoperatively. Statin patients were compared to nonstatin patients on incidence of intraoperative use of albuterol and postoperative respiratory complications for primary analysis. Infectious complications, cardiovascular complications, in-hospital mortality, and duration of hospitalization were compared for secondary analyses, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential confounding. RESULTS: Statin use was associated with lower odds of intraoperative albuterol treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.97; P = .001; number needed to treat [NNT] = 216). Postoperative respiratory complications were also less common (OR = 0.82; 98.75% CI, 0.78-0.87; P < .001). Secondarily, statin use was associated with lower odds of infections, cardiovascular complications, in-hospital mortality, and shorter duration of hospitalization. The interaction between statin use and sex was significant (with significance criteria P < .10) for all primary and secondary outcomes except intraoperative use of albuterol. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative statin use in noncardiac surgical patients was associated with slightly reduced odds of postoperative respiratory, infectious, and cardiovascular complications. However, the NNTs were high. Thus, despite the fact that statins appeared to be associated with lower odds of various complications, especially cardiovascular complications, our results do not support using statins specifically to reduce noncardiovascular complications after noncardiac surgery.

Multimodal Analgesic Regimen for Spine Surgery: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Various multimodal analgesic approaches have been proposed for spine surgery. The authors evaluated the effect of using a combination of four nonopioid analgesics versus placebo on Quality of Recovery, postoperative opioid consumption, and pain scores. METHODS: Adults having multilevel spine surgery who were at high risk for postoperative pain were double-blind randomized to placebos or the combination of single preoperative oral doses of acetaminophen 1,000 mg and gabapentin 600 mg, an infusion of ketamine 5 µg/kg/min throughout surgery, and an infusion of lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg/h intraoperatively and during the initial hour of recovery. Postoperative analgesia included acetaminophen, gabapentin, and opioids. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery 15-questionnaire (0 to 150 points, with 15% considered to be a clinically important difference) assessed on the third postoperative day. Secondary outcomes were opioid use in morphine equivalents (with 20% considered to be a clinically important change) and verbal-response pain scores (0 to 10, with a 1-point change considered important) over the initial postoperative 48 h. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for futility per a priori guidelines. The average duration ± SD of surgery was 5.4 ± 2.1 h. The mean ± SD Quality of Recovery score was 109 ± 25 in the pathway patients (n = 150) versus 109 ± 23 in the placebo group (n = 149); estimated difference in means was 0 (95% CI, -6 to 6, P = 0.920). Pain management within the initial 48 postoperative hours was not superior in analgesic pathway group: 48-h opioid consumption median (Q1, Q3) was 72 (48, 113) mg in the analgesic pathway group and 75 (50, 152) mg in the placebo group, with the difference in medians being -9 (97.5% CI, -23 to 5, P = 0.175) mg. Mean 48-h pain scores were 4.8 ± 1.8 in the analgesic pathway group versus 5.2 ± 1.9 in the placebo group, with the difference in means being -0.4 (97.5% CI; -0.8, 0.1, P = 0.094). CONCLUSIONS: An analgesic pathway based on preoperative acetaminophen and gabapentin, combined with intraoperative infusions of lidocaine and ketamine, did not improve recovery in patients who had multilevel spine surgery.

Combined use of minimal access craniotomy, intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, and awake functional mapping for the resection of gliomas in 61 patients.

OBJECTIVECurrent management of gliomas involves a multidisciplinary approach, including a combination of maximal safe resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. The use of intraoperative MRI (iMRI) helps to maximize extent of resection (EOR), and use of awake functional mapping supports preservation of eloquent areas of the brain. This study reports on the combined use of these surgical adjuncts.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of patients with gliomas who underwent minimal access craniotomy in their iMRI suite (IMRIS) with awake functional mapping between 2010 and 2017. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, and treatment details were obtained. Volumetric analysis of preoperative tumor volume as well as intraoperative and postoperative residual volumes was performed.RESULTSA total of 61 patients requiring 62 tumor resections met the inclusion criteria. Of the tumors resected, 45.9% were WHO grade I or II and 54.1% were WHO grade III or IV. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring modalities included speech alone in 23 cases (37.1%), motor alone in 24 (38.7%), and both speech and motor in 15 (24.2%). Intraoperative MRI demonstrated residual tumor in 48 cases (77.4%), 41 (85.4%) of whom underwent further resection. Median EOR on iMRI and postoperative MRI was 86.0% and 98.5%, respectively, with a mean difference of 10% and a median difference of 10.5% (p < 0.001). Seventeen of 62 cases achieved an increased EOR > 15% related to use of iMRI. Seventeen (60.7%) of 28 low-grade gliomas and 10 (30.3%) of 33 high-grade gliomas achieved complete resection. Significant intraoperative events included at least temporary new or worsened speech alteration in 7 of 38 cases who underwent speech mapping (18.4%), new or worsened weakness in 7 of 39 cases who underwent motor mapping (18.0%), numbness in 2 cases (3.2%), agitation in 2 (3.2%), and seizures in 2 (3.2%). Among the patients with new intraoperative deficits, 2 had residual speech difficulty, and 2 had weakness postoperatively, which improved to baseline strength by 6 months.CONCLUSIONSIn this retrospective case series, the combined use of iMRI and awake functional mapping was demonstrated to be safe and feasible. This combined approach allows one to achieve the dual goals of maximal tumor removal and minimal functional consequences in patients undergoing glioma resection.

Simulation Versus Problem Based Learning for Cerebrospinal Drainage Catheter Insertion and Management: A Randomized Trial in a Large Academic Anesthesiology Residency Program.

OBJECTIVE: Cerebrospinal fluid drainage catheter-related complications can be reduced by following strict guidelines during their introduction, maintenance, and removal. The authors therefore aimed to determine whether simulation-based learning would improve senior anesthesiology residents' patient care performance during the insertion and management of these catheters compared to interactive problem-based learning (PBL) using the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills global rating scale (ANTS). DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Vascular or hybrid operating rooms in a large academic tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Senior anesthesia (categorical anesthesia-3) residents rotating through the vascular rotation at the Cleveland Clinic main campus in the period between December 2014 and June 2017. INTERVENTION: Simulation-based learning versus PBL. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the composite score (ANTS global rating scale) achieved by participating residents as evaluated by their supervising anesthesiologists. Out of 28 residents who completed the study, N = 13 were randomized to simulation-based learning and N = 15 residents to the PBL approach. The median (first quartile, third quartile) composite score was 16 (14, 16) and 16 (13, 16) for the simulation-based learning and PBL groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in staff evaluation of the 2 study groups (p = 0.48) with an estimated odds (95% confidence interval) of getting a better staff evaluation score of 1.9 (0.3-10.6) times higher comparing simulation versus traditional training groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to interactive PBL, simulation-based learning does not result in a statistically significant improvement in anesthesia resident performance during insertion and management of cerebrospinal fluid drainage catheters.

Cognitive Aids for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Neuroanesthetic Emergencies: Consensus Guidelines on Behalf of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) Education Committee.

Cognitive aids and evidence-based checklists are frequently utilized in complex situations across many disciplines and sectors. The purpose of such aids is not simply to provide instruction so as to fulfill a task, but rather to ensure that all contingencies related to the emergency are considered and accounted for and that the task at hand is completed fully, despite possible distractions. Furthermore, utilization of a checklist enhances communication to all team members by allowing all stakeholders to know and understand exactly what is occurring, what has been accomplished, and what remains to be done. Here we present a set of evidence-based critical event cognitive aids for neuroanesthesia emergencies developed by the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) Education Committee.

Lack of Association between Preoperative Statin Use and Respiratory and Neurologic Complications after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Statins may reduce the risk of pulmonary and neurologic complications after cardiac surgery. METHODS: The authors acquired data for adults who had coronary artery bypass graft, valve surgery, or combined procedures. The authors matched patients who took statins preoperatively to patients who did not. First, the authors assessed the association between preoperative statin use and the primary outcomes of prolonged ventilation (more than 24 h), pneumonia (positive cultures of sputum, transtracheal fluid, bronchial washings, and/or clinical findings consistent with the diagnosis of pneumonia), and in-hospital all-cause mortality, using logistic regressions. Second, the authors analyzed the collapsed composite of neurologic complications using logistic regression. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 14,129 eligible patients, 6,642 patients were successfully matched. There was no significant association between preoperative statin use and prolonged ventilation (statin: 408/3,321 [12.3%] vs. nonstatin: 389/3,321 [11.7%]), pneumonia (44/3,321 [1.3%] vs. 54/3,321 [1.6%]), and in-hospital mortality (52/3,321 [1.6%] vs. 43/3,321 [1.3%]). The estimated odds ratio was 1.06 (98.3% CI, 0.88 to 1.27) for prolonged ventilation, 0.81 (0.50 to 1.32) for pneumonia, and 1.21 (0.74 to 1.99) for in-hospital mortality. Neurologic outcomes were not associated with preoperative statin use (53/3,321 [1.6%] vs. 56/3,321 [1.7%]), with an odds ratio of 0.95 (0.60 to 1.50). The length of intensive care unit and hospital stay was also not associated with preoperative statin use, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (0.98 to 1.10) for length of hospital stay and 1.00 (0.94 to 1.06) for length of intensive care unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative statin use did not reduce pulmonary or neurologic complications after cardiac surgery.

Intraoperative Hypotension During Second Stage of Deep Brain Stimulator Placement: Same Day versus Different Day Procedures.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated blood pressure management associated with implantable pulse generator (IPG) procedure on same day (SD) versus different day (DD) from deep brain stimulation (DBS) placement. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 99 records for vasopressors given during IPG using a negative binomial regression model was performed. An association between SD versus DD, cumulative vasopressor dose, and minimum and maximum mean arterial pressure (MAP) were sought. RESULTS: No significant association between SD versus DD DBS and the number of times vasopressors were given during stage II, estimated ratio of means (CI) of 1.8 (0.9-3.5); P = 0.07. Day of stage II had no association with the cumulative dose of vasopressor given during stage II, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of 2.4 (-0.4 to 5.3). The SD group had a significantly lower mean of minimum stage II MAP compared with DD, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of -10.5 (-17.4 to -3.5; P < 0.001). There was no association with maximum stage II MAP, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of -2.8 (-17.6 to 12.0; P = 0.63). CONCLUSION: No difference in intraoperative vasopressor use was found between SD versus DD IPG placement, but the SD group had a significantly lower minimum MAP.

Comparison of 2 resident learning tools-interactive screen-based simulated case scenarios versus problem-based learning discussions: a prospective quasi-crossover cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Simulation-based learning is emerging as an alternative educational tool in this era of a relative shortfall of teaching anesthesiologists. The objective of the study is to assess whether screen-based (interactive computer simulated) case scenarios are more effective than problem-based learning discussions (PBLDs) in improving test scores 4 and 8 weeks after these interventions in anesthesia residents during their first neuroanesthesia rotation. DESIGN: Prospective, nonblinded quasi-crossover study. SETTING: Cleveland Clinic. PATIENTS: Anesthesiology residents. INTERVENTIONS: Two case scenarios were delivered from the Anesoft software as screen-based sessions, and parallel scripts were developed for 2 PBLDs. Each resident underwent both types of training sessions, starting with the PBLD session, and the 2 cases were alternated each month (ie, in 1 month, the screen-based intervention used case 1 and the PBLD used case 2, and vice versa for the next month). MEASUREMENTS: Test scores before the rotation (baseline), immediately after the rotation (4 weeks after the start of the rotation), and 8 weeks after the start of rotation were collected on each topic from each resident. The effect of training method on improvement in test scores was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Compared to the departmental standard of PBLD, the simulation method did not improve either the 4- or 8-week mean test scores (P = .41 and P = .40 for training method effect on 4- and 8-week scores, respectively). Resident satisfaction with the simulation module on a 5-point Likert scale showed subjective evidence of a positive impact on resident education. CONCLUSIONS: Screen-based simulators were not more effective than PBLD for education during the neuroanesthesia rotation in anesthesia residency.

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on Hemodynamic Stability and Analgesic Requirement After Craniotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia for craniotomies should blunt responses to noxious stimuli, whereas subsequently leaving patients sufficiently alert for early neurological evaluation. The aim was to compare postoperative blood pressure control, pain, and opioid requirement after anesthesia with dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil. We therefore tested 2 primary hypotheses: (1) intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine provides better control of postoperative blood pressure than remifentanil; and (2) patients given dexmedetomidine have less postoperative pain and use less opioid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults having elective brain tumor excisions under balanced general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were randomized to an infusion of remifentanil (0.08 to 0.15 µg/kg/min, n=71) or dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 0.7 µg/kg/h, n=68). Patients also received propofol, rocuronium, fentanyl, and sevoflurane. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pain were recorded at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 postoperative minutes. Outcomes were assessed with joint hypothesis testing, evaluating noninferiority and superiority. RESULTS: Compared with remifentanil, the use of dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced postoperative MAP (88±12 vs. 98±11 mm Hg), with estimated mean difference (97.5% confidence interval) of -10 (-13, -4) mm Hg, P<0.001, and mean visual analog pain score (2.9±2.6 vs. 5.1±2.4 points), with estimated mean difference of -5 (-10, -3) points, P<0.001, and required less median opioid consumption (5 [0, 10] vs. 10 [7, 15] mg morphine equivalents), with estimated median difference of -5 (-10, -3) mg, P<0.001. Dexmedetomidine was both noninferior and superior to remifentanil in maintaining postoperative hemodynamics and providing improved pain control. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative dexmedetomidine better controlled postoperative MAP and provided superior analgesia in patients undergoing craniotomy.