Anesthetic Management with Propofol in a Patient with Rasmussen's Encephalitis Complicated by Intractable Partial-Onset Epileptic Seizures: A Case Report.

Introduction: Rasmussen's encephalitis (RE) is a progressive and chronic ailment characterized by drug-resistant epileptic seizures. RE is uncommon, and no documented accounts of its anesthetic management exist. Anesthetic management without causing epileptic seizures is important in RE. Here, we present a case of safe anesthetic management in a pediatric patient with RE. Case Presentation: A 7-year-old boy who was diagnosed with RE at the age of 6 years was scheduled for supernumerary tooth extraction under general anesthesia. The patient was being treated with prednisolone, sodium valproate, zonisamide, lacosamide, and famotidine. Despite receiving antiepileptic therapy, the patient experienced partial epileptic seizures several times per week. The seizures presented as numbness in his right hand and progressed to tonic-clonic seizures affecting the right side of his body. On the day of the surgical procedure, the patient was administered regular doses of antiepileptic drugs and prednisolone. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using a combination of propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium. The surgical procedure was successfully performed, and the patient awakened smoothly from anesthesia. No epileptic seizures were observed intra- or postoperatively. Conclusion: RE typically presents with drug-resistant seizures and the initial symptoms are usually refractory partial seizures. Propofol is well-established as a treatment option for refractory status epilepticus, and it reduces the frequency of spikes in patients with partial epilepsy. In this case, general anesthesia without epileptic seizures was achieved using propofol.

A model six-month workshop for developing systematic review protocols at teaching hospitals: action research and scholarly productivity.

BACKGROUND: Research engagement contributes to the improvement of patient care. A systematic review is a suitable first scholarly activity because it entails summarization of publicly available data and usually requires neither rigorous ethical review nor research funding. METHODS: This study aimed to develop a model workshop for healthcare staff to acquire skills in creating systematic review protocols based on their own clinical questions at teaching hospitals. We used an action research method to create a model workshop at four hospitals in Japan from April 2015 to March 2017. To improve the program, we solicited reflections using participant questionnaires for each lecture and examined the quality of homework submitted by participants after each lecture. We administered a revised final version of the workshop at five hospitals from April 2016 to March 2017. We evaluated the participants' scholarly productivity related to these workshops. The observation period was a minimum of 2 years following the workshops. RESULTS: Most participants had never developed a formal clinical research protocol and voluntarily participated in the workshop. The action research was developed and implemented at nine teaching hospitals in Japan, including one university hospital. The study developed a model nine-step workshop curriculum: 1) Research question development, 2) Search strategy development, 3) Search strategy brush-up, 4) Exclusion and inclusion criteria development, 5) Risk of bias assessment planning, 6) Meta-analysis planning, 7) Subgroup and sensitivity analysis planning, 8) Planning the presentation of results, and 9) Presentation protocols. A total of 233 participants, including medical doctors and other health professionals, produced 414 research questions. Seventy-nine participants (34%) completed the workshop, and 47 review teams accomplished systematic review protocols. The participants published 13 peer-reviewed articles as a result of the workshop. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a structured scholarly productive model workshop for healthcare staff working at hospitals. We found healthcare staff with clinical subspecialties were able to develop an unexpectedly high number of research questions through this workshop. Medical teachers at hospitals with prior systematic review experience could teach how to develop systematic review protocols using this model. Further research is needed to increase the academic productivity of such workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/), UMIN000017107 (4/15/2015), UMIN000025580 (1/10/2017).

Utility of the FloTrac™ Sensor for Anesthetic Management of Laparoscopic Surgery in a Patient After Pneumonectomy: A Case Report and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND Pneumonectomy is associated with various anatomical changes and potential complications involving the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. How laparoscopic surgery affects cardiorespiratory status in postpneumonectomy patients is yet to be ascertained. Here, we describe the use of the FloTrac™ sensor for the anesthetic management of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in a postpneumonectomy patient. CASE REPORT A 35-year-old woman underwent an extended hysterectomy and right pneumonectomy for retroperitoneal angiosarcoma and lung metastases, respectively. The metastasis was found in her left adrenal gland; therefore, laparoscopic adrenalectomy was scheduled. Spirometry demonstrated the following: forced vital capacity (FVC), 1.90 L (55.6% of predicted value); vital capacity, 53.6%; forced expiratory volume (FEV1), 1.38 L (47.3% of predicted value); and FEV1/FVC, 72.4%. The heart and mediastinal structures had shifted into the right hemithorax. Hugh-Jones classification was grade 2. The induction of general anesthesia was planned. The patient was orotracheally intubated and managed with the pressure control ventilation-volume guaranteed mode of ventilation, targeting an expired tidal volume of 6-7 ml/kg, without using PEEP. We evaluated cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV), and stroke volume variation (SVV) using a FloTrac™ sensor. After the establishment of pneumoperitoneum, SVV increased. CO and SV decreased slightly; however, the patient's hemodynamic status was stable. After surgery, we extubated the patient in the operating room; she demonstrated good progress and was discharged home on postoperative day 5. CONCLUSIONS We found changes in the values of SVV after pneumoperitoneum in a postpneumonectomy patient. The FloTrac™ sensor may be a minimally invasive and promising monitor for detecting hemodynamic changes associated with laparoscopic surgery in postpneumonectomy patients.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting of extracorporeal circuits during continuous renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major comorbidity in hospitalised patients. Patients with severe AKI require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) when they are haemodynamically unstable. CRRT is prescribed assuming it is delivered over 24 hours. However, it is interrupted when the extracorporeal circuits clot and the replacement is required. The interruption may impair the solute clearance as it causes under dosing of CRRT. To prevent the circuit clotting, anticoagulation drugs are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting in the extracorporeal circuits during CRRT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs or cluster RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of pharmacological interventions to prevent clotting of extracorporeal circuits during CRRT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted and assessed independently by two authors. Dichotomous outcomes were calculated as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary review outcomes were major bleeding, successful prevention of clotting (no need of circuit change in the first 24 hours for any reason), and death. Evidence certainty was determined using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 34 completed studies (1960 participants) were included in this review. We identified seven ongoing studies which we plan to assess in a future update of this review. No included studies were free from risk of bias. We rated 30 studies for performance bias and detection bias as high risk of bias. We rated 18 studies for random sequence generation,ààsix studies for the allocation concealment, three studies for performance bias, three studies for detection bias,à nine studies for attrition bias,à14 studies for selective reporting and nine studies for the other potential source of bias, as having low risk of bias. We identified eight studies (581 participants) that compared citrate with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; moderate certainty evidence) and probably increases successful prevention of clotting (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.87; moderate certainty evidence). Citrate may have little or no effect on death at 28 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, moderate certainty evidence). Citrate versus UFH may reduce the number of participants who drop out of treatment due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may make little or no difference to the recovery of kidney function (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may reduceàthrombocytopenia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether citrate reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data. For low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus UFH, six studies (250 participants) were identified. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce major bleeding (0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH reduces death at 28 days or leads to successful prevention of clotting. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce the number of patient dropouts from adverse events (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.53; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to the recovery of kidney function because no included studies reported this outcome. It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to thrombocytopenia. It was uncertain whether UFH reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data. For the comparison of UFH to no anticoagulation, one study (10 participants) was identified. It is uncertain whether UFH compare to no anticoagulation leads to more major bleeding. It is uncertain whether UFH improves successful prevention of clotting in the first 24 hours, death at 28 days, the number of patient dropouts due to adverse events, recovery of kidney function, thrombocytopenia, or cost to health care services because no study reported these outcomes. For the comparison ofàcitrate to no anticoagulation,àno completed study was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently,àavailable evidence does not support the overall superiority of any anticoagulant to another. Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding and prevents clotting and probably has little or no effect on death at 28 days. For other pharmacological anticoagulation methods, there is no available data showing overall superiority to citrate or no pharmacological anticoagulation. Further studies are needed to identify patient populations in which CRRT should commence with no pharmacological anticoagulation or with citrate.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting of extracorporeal circuits during continuous renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major comorbidity in hospitalised patients. Patients with severe AKI require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) when they are haemodynamically unstable. CRRT is prescribed assuming it is delivered over 24 hours. However, it is interrupted when the extracorporeal circuits clot and the replacement is required. The interruption may impair the solute clearance as it causes under dosing of CRRT. To prevent the circuit clotting, anticoagulation drugs are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting in the extracorporeal circuits during CRRT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs or cluster RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of pharmacological interventions to prevent clotting of extracorporeal circuits during CRRT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted and assessed independently by two authors. Dichotomous outcomes were calculated as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary review outcomes were major bleeding, successful prevention of clotting (no need of circuit change in the first 24 hours for any reason), and death. Evidence certainty was determined using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 34 completed studies (1960 participants) were included in this review. We identified seven ongoing studies which we plan to assess in a future update of this review. No included studies were free from risk of bias. We rated 30 studies for performance bias and detection bias as high risk of bias. We rated 18 studies for random sequence generation,  six studies for the allocation concealment, three studies for performance bias, three studies for detection bias,  nine studies for attrition bias, 14 studies for selective reporting and nine studies for the other potential source of bias, as having low risk of bias. We identified eight studies (581 participants) that compared citrate with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Citrate may have little or no effect on death at 28 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, moderate certainty evidence), while citrate versus UFH may have little or no effect on successful prevention of clotting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.32; moderate certainty evidence). Citrate versus UFH may reduce the number of participants who drop out of treatment due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may make little or no difference to the recovery of kidney function (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may reduce thrombocytopenia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether citrate reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data. For low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus UFH, six studies (250 participants) were identified. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce major bleeding (0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH reduces death at 28 days or leads to successful prevention of clotting. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce the number of patient dropouts from adverse events (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.53; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to the recovery of kidney function because no included studies reported this outcome. It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to thrombocytopenia. It was uncertain whether UFH reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data. For the comparison of UFH to no anticoagulation, one study (10 participants) was identified. It is uncertain whether UFH compare to no anticoagulation leads to more major bleeding. It is uncertain whether UFH improves successful prevention of clotting in the first 24 hours, death at 28 days, the number of patient dropouts due to adverse events, recovery of kidney function, thrombocytopenia, or cost to health care services because no study reported these outcomes. For the comparison of citrate to no anticoagulation, no completed study was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, available evidence does not support the overall superiority of any anticoagulant to another. Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding and probably has little or no effect on preventing clotting or death at 28 days. For other pharmacological anticoagulation methods, there is no available data showing overall superiority to citrate or no pharmacological anticoagulation. Further studies are needed to identify patient populations in which CRRT should commence with no pharmacological anticoagulation or with citrate.

Anesthetic management of a child with Kagami-Ogata syndrome complicated with marked tracheal deviation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Kagami-Ogata syndrome (KOS) is a rare congenital imprinting disorder. The problems related to the anesthetic management of patients with KOS are respiratory distress and difficult endotracheal intubation. CASE PRESENTATION: A 2-year-old male was scheduled to undergo orchiopexy for bilateral cryptorchidism. Although he had a history of severe respiratory distress immediately after birth, his preoperative respiratory condition was stable. He also had marked tracheal deviation. General anesthesia was induced with nitrous oxide and sevoflurane in oxygen. A laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was inserted following rocuronium administration. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and simultaneous caudal anesthesia. His postoperative course was uneventful. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with KOS should preferably undergo elective surgery only after infancy because their respiratory status is more stable as they grow older. Thorough preoperative evaluation of the respiratory tract is important even in KOS patients with a stable respiratory condition.

Ultrasonography for confirmation of gastric tube placement.

BACKGROUND: Gastric tubes are commonly used for the administration of drugs and tube feeding for people who are unable to swallow. Feeding via a tube misplaced in the trachea can result in severe pneumonia. Therefore, the confirmation of tube placement in the stomach after tube insertion is important. Recent studies have reported that ultrasonography provides good diagnostic accuracy estimates in the confirmation of appropriate tube placement. Hence, ultrasound could provide a promising alternative to X-rays in the confirmation of tube placement, especially in settings where X-ray facilities are unavailable or difficult to access. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for gastric tube placement confirmation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (to March 2016), Embase (to March 2016), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) PROSPERO Register (to May 2016), Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility Databases (to May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (to May 2016), ISRCTN registry (May 2016), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to May 2016) and reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of naso- and orogastric tube placement confirmed by ultrasound visualization using X-ray visualization as the reference standard. We included cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies. We excluded case series or case reports. Studies were excluded if X-ray visualization was not the reference standard or if the tube being placed was a gastrostomy or enteric tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 studies (545 participants and 560 tube insertions) which met our inclusion criteria.No study was assigned low risk of bias or low concern in every QUADAS-2 domain. We judged only three (30%) studies to have low risk of bias in the participant selection domain because they performed ultrasound after they confirmed correct position by other methods.Few data (43 participants) were available for misplacement detection (specificity) due to the low incidence of misplacement. We did not perform a meta-analysis because of considerable heterogeneity of the index test such as the difference of echo window, the combination of ultrasound with other confirmation methods (e.g. saline flush visualization by ultrasound) and ultrasound during the insertion of the tube. For all settings, sensitivity estimates for individual studies ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 and specificity estimates from 0.17 to 1.00. For settings where X-ray was not readily available and participants underwent gastric tube insertion for drainage (four studies, 305 participants), sensitivity estimates of ultrasound in combination with other confirmatory tests ranged from 0.86 to 0.98 and specificity estimates of 1.00 with wide confidence intervals.For the studies using ultrasound alone (four studies, 314 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 0.91 to 0.98 and specificity estimates from 0.67 to 1.00. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of 10 studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of gastric tube placement, few studies had a low risk of bias. Based on limited evidence, ultrasound does not have sufficient accuracy as a single test to confirm gastric tube placement. However, in settings where X-ray is not readily available, ultrasound may be useful to detect misplaced gastric tubes. Larger studies are needed to determine the possibility of adverse events when ultrasound is used to confirm tube placement.