Article

[Unwanted wakefulness during general anesthesia].

Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
Der Anaesthesist (Impact Factor: 0.74). 07/2004; 53(6):581-92; quiz 593-4.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Intraoperative wakefulness ("awareness") is still a relevant problem. Different stages of wakefulness exist: conscious awareness with explicit recall of pain in 0.03% and with nonpainful explicit recall in 0.1-0.2% of all anesthesias; amnesic awareness or implicit recall may occur with unknown, even higher incidences. Sufficient analgesia minimizes possible painful perceptions. Opioids, benzodiazepines, and N(2)O alone or combined lead to the highest incidences of nonpainful intraoperative wakefulness. Volatile anesthetics, etomidate, barbiturates, and propofol in sufficient doses effectively block any sensory processing and therefore abolish intraoperative wakefulness. Intraoperative awareness with recall may lead to sustained impairment of the patients, in severe cases even to a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The observation of clinical signs does not reliably detect intraoperative wakefulness in all cases; monitoring of end-tidal gas concentrations, EEG, or evoked potentials may help in prevention. Active information is recommended only for patients at higher risk. Complaints about recall of intraoperative events should be taken seriously; in cases of sustained symptoms psychological help may be necessary.

0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Detection of mid-latency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEPs) is a technology to monitor central nervous structures. As seen in adults and children, general anaesthesia influences the MLAEP latencies. MLAEP detection seems to be a promising tool to assess different levels of anaesthesia depth in adults and children. MLAEPs were recorded in 10 infants (2 months-3 yr), 12 schoolchildren (6-14 yr), and 10 elderly (75-89 yr) under general anaesthesia with increasing concentrations of sevoflurane at steady state. In addition, MLAEPs were detected before and after the application of sufentanil. At all different ages, MLAEP latencies increased significantly with higher volume percentages of sevoflurane. These results were also detectable when MAC values of sevoflurane were compared with MLAEP peaks. An age-dependent effect could be displayed as elderly people need lower absolute sevoflurane concentrations to achieve the same MLAEP peak increase. Overall, the application of sufentanil under steady-state sevoflurane application at 1 MAC did not importantly affect the MLAEP latencies. MLAEP latencies increase at the influence of sevoflurane in a dose-dependent manner and in relation to age. These results imply that MLAEP detection is a reasonable tool for monitoring hypnotic effects at all ages. Further studies are required to standardize MLAEP alterations related to effects of medication used for general anaesthesia at all different ages.
    BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 07/2011; 107(5):726-34. DOI:10.1093/bja/aer226 · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the incidence of perioperative minor adverse events and to analyze patient satisfaction based on potential explanatory variables. Structured, face-to-face interview of 25% of all patients undergoing surgery during the period from January 2003 through June 2006. Academic university medical center. 12,276 patients (5,793 men and 6,483 women) from all surgical disciplines: 7,440 patients had general anesthesia, 4,236 patients had regional anesthesia, and 600 patients had a combined general-regional anesthetic technique. Occurrence of perioperative minor adverse events was assessed during the interview. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 4-point Likert scale. 3,652 (30%) patients reported at least one perioperative complaint and 737 (6%) patients reported multiple minor adverse events. Overall, a total of 4,475 minor adverse events were reported. Leading adverse events included postoperative nausea and vomiting (1,705 complaints), sore throat (1,228 complaints), and hoarseness (802 complaints). Patient satisfaction with anesthetic care was generally high (97% satisfied or highly satisfied). Patients were significantly more satisfied following regional than general anesthesia (P < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction was also associated with the occurrence of at least one minor adverse event (P < 0.001) or with increasing ASA physical status (P < 0.001). Minor events occur with a surprisingly high incidence and are significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction. Regional anesthesia is associated with fewer patient complaints and significantly higher postoperative patient satisfaction.
    Journal of clinical anesthesia 02/2010; 22(1):13-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.02.015 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report on a 49-year-old female patient suffering from recurrent carcinoma of the rectum, who underwent a palliative Hartmann operation for an anus praeter reconstruction. After a remifentanil bolus of 90 microg and a propofol bolus of 200 mg, anaesthesia was maintained with 0.25 microg/kg/min remifentanil and 4 mg/kg propofol, and after skin incision with 1.0 microg/kg/min remifentanil and 5 mg/kg/h propofol. Throughout the operation, the patient showed a stable blood pressure of 120-130/80 mmHg but 15 min after skin incision the heart rate suddenly rose to 140 beats/min, so remifentanil was increased to 1.8 microg/kg/min and propofol to 8 mg/kg/h. Over a time period of 15 min the heart rate decreased to 90 beats/min. Subsequently vegetative parameters stayed within the normal range (heart rate 90 beats/min, blood pressure 120-130/80 mmHg) so that continuous administration of remifentanil and propofol could be tapered. After completion of skin sutures, administration of remifentanil and propofol was terminated. After extubation the patient reported having heard conversations contributable to the end of the operation and the sentence: "now we're done" was clearly remembered. The patient stated that she had not been able to move any part of her body, that she had perceived the situation as extremely unpleasant and dangerous and that she had felt severe pain. At the postoperative rounds the patient refused any psychological and psychiatric help.
    Der Anaesthesist 11/2005; 54(10):1000-4. · 0.74 Impact Factor