Search

Elective surgery can have long-term psychological sequelae, especially for patients who experience intraoperative awareness. However, risk factors, other than awareness, for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after surgery are poorly defined, and practical screening methods have not been applied to a broad population of surgical patients.The Psychological Sequelae of Surgery study was a prospective cohort study of patients previously enrolled in the United States and Canada in 3 trials for the prevention of intraoperative awareness. The 68 patients who experienced definite or possible awareness were matched with 418 patients who denied awareness based on age, sex, surgery type, and awareness risk. Participants completed the PTSD Checklist-Specific (PCL-S) and/or a modified Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview telephone assessment to identify symptoms of PTSD and symptom complexes consistent with a PTSD diagnosis. We then used structural equation modeling to produce a composite PTSD score and examined potential risk factors.One hundred forty patients were unreachable; of those contacted, 303 (88%) participated a median of 2 years postoperatively. Forty-four of the 219 patients (20.1%) who completed the PCL-S exceeded the civilian screening cutoff score for PTSD symptoms resulting from their surgery (15 of 35 [43%] with awareness and 29 of 184 [16%] without). Nineteen patients (8.7%; 5 of 35 [14%] with awareness and 14 of 184 [7.6%] without) both exceeded the cutoff and endorsed a breadth of symptoms consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition diagnosis of PTSD attributable to their surgery. Factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were poor social support, previous PTSD symptoms, previous mental health treatment, dissociation related to surgery, perceiving that one's life was threatened during surgery, and intraoperative awareness (all P ≤ 0.017). Perioperative dissociation was identified as a potential mediator for perioperative PTSD symptoms.Events in the perioperative period can precipitate psychological symptoms consistent with subsyndromal and syndromal PTSD. We not only confirmed the high rate of postoperative PTSD in awareness patients but also identified a significant rate in matched nonawareness controls. Screening surgical patients, especially those with potentially mediating risk factors such as intraoperative awareness or perioperative dissociation, for postoperative PTSD symptoms with the PCL-S is practical and could promote early referral, evaluation, and treatment.

Background: Patients with a history of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall (AWR) are hypothesized to be at higher risk for AWR than the general surgical population. In this study, the authors assessed whether patients with a history of AWR (1) are actually at higher risk for AWR; (2) receive different anesthetic management; and (3) are relatively resistant to the hypnotic actions of volatile anesthetics. Methods: Patients with a history of AWR and matched controls from three randomized clinical trials investigating prevention of AWR were compared for relative risk of AWR. Anesthetic management was compared with the use of the Hotelling’s T2 statistic. A linear mixed model, including previously identified covariates, assessed the effects of a history of AWR on the relationship between end-tidal anesthetic concentration and bispectral index. Results: The incidence of AWR was 1.7% (4 of 241) in patients with a history of AWR and 0.3% (4 of 1,205) in control patients (relative risk = 5.0; 95% CI, 1.3–19.9). Anesthetic management did not differ between cohorts, but there was a significant effect of a history of AWR on the end-tidal anesthetic concentration versus bispectral index relationship. Conclusions: Surgical patients with a history of AWR are five times more likely to experience AWR than similar patients without a history of AWR. Further consideration should be given to modifying perioperative care and postoperative evaluation of patients with a history of AWR.

The red-hair phenotype, which is often produced by mutations in the melanocortin-1 receptor gene, has been associated with an increase in sedative, anesthetic, and analgesic requirements in both animal and human studies. Nevertheless, the clinical implications of this phenomenon in red-haired patients undergoing surgery are currently unknown.In a secondary analysis of a prospective trial of intraoperative awareness, red-haired patients were identified and matched with five control patients, and the relative risk for intraoperative awareness was determined. Overall anesthetic management between groups was compared using Hotelling's T(2) statistic. Inhaled anesthetic requirements were compared between cohorts by evaluating the relationship between end-tidal anesthetic concentration and the bispectral index with a linear mixed-effects model. Time to recovery was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and differences in postoperative pain and nausea/vomiting were evaluated with Chi square tests.A cohort of 319 red-haired patients was matched with 1,595 control patients for a sample size of 1,914. There were no significant differences in the relative risk of intraoperative awareness (relative risk = 1.67; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 8.22), anesthetic management, recovery times, or postoperative pain between red-haired patients and control patients. The relationship between pharmacokinetically stable volatile anesthetic concentrations and bispectral index values differed significantly between red-haired patients and controls (P 0.001), but without clinical implications.There were no demonstrable differences between red-haired patients and controls in response to anesthetic and analgesic agents or in recovery parameters. These findings suggest that perioperative anesthetic and analgesic management should not be altered based on self-reported red-hair phenotype.

Unintended intraoperative awareness, which occurs when general anesthesia is not achieved or maintained, affects up to 1% of patients at high risk for this complication. We tested the hypothesis that a protocol incorporating the electroencephalogram-derived bispectral index (BIS) is superior to a protocol incorporating standard monitoring of end-tidal anesthetic-agent concentration (ETAC) for the prevention of awareness.We conducted a prospective, randomized, evaluator-blinded trial at three medical centers. We randomly assigned 6041 patients at high risk for awareness to BIS-guided anesthesia (with an audible alert if the BIS value was40 or60, on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating the suppression of detectable brain electrical activity and 100 indicating the awake state) or ETAC-guided anesthesia (with an audible alert if the ETAC was0.7 or1.3 minimum alveolar concentration). In addition to audible alerts, the protocols included structured education and checklists. Superiority of the BIS protocol was assessed with the use of a one-sided Fisher's exact test.A total of 7 of 2861 patients (0.24%) in the BIS group, as compared with 2 of 2852 (0.07%) in the ETAC group, who were interviewed postoperatively had definite intraoperative awareness (a difference of 0.17 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 0.38; P=0.98). Thus, the superiority of the BIS protocol was not demonstrated. A total of 19 cases of definite or possible intraoperative awareness (0.66%) occurred in the BIS group, as compared with 8 (0.28%) in the ETAC group (a difference of 0.38 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.74; P=0.99), with the superiority of the BIS protocol again not demonstrated. There was no difference between the groups with respect to the amount of anesthesia administered or the rate of major postoperative adverse outcomes.The superiority of the BIS protocol was not established; contrary to expectations, fewer patients in the ETAC group than in the BIS group experienced awareness. (Funded by the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research and others; BAG-RECALL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00682825.).

Background Awareness with explicit recall of intra-operative events is a rare and distressing complication that may lead to severe psychological symptoms. Candidate depth of anesthesia monitors have been developed, partly with the aim of preventing this complication. Despite conflicting results from clinical trials and the lack of incisive validation, such monitors have enjoyed widespread clinical adoption, in particular the bispectral index. The American Society of Anesthesiologists has called for adequately powered and rigorously designed clinical trials to determine whether the use of such monitors decreases the incidence of awareness in various settings. The aim of this study is to determine with increased precision whether incorporating the bispectral index into a structured general anesthesia protocol decreases the incidence of awareness with explicit recall among a subset of surgical patients at increased risk for awareness and scheduled to receive an inhalation gas-based general anesthetic. Methods/Design BAG-RECALL is a multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial, in which 6,000 patients are being assigned to bispectral index-guided anesthesia (target range, 40 to 60) or end-tidal anesthetic gas-guided anesthesia (target range, 0.7 to 1.3 age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration). Postoperatively, patients are being assessed for explicit recall at two intervals (0 to 72 hours, and 30 days after extubation). The primary outcome of the trial is awareness with explicit recall. Secondary outcomes include postoperative mortality, psychological symptoms, intensive care and hospital length of stay, average anesthetic gas administration, postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting, duration of stay in the recovery area, intra-operative dreaming, and postoperative delirium. Discussion This trial has been designed to complement two other clinical trials: B-Unaware and MACS (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00281489 and NCT00689091). With the large patient numbers and complementary rigorous designs, it is envisaged that pre-specified meta-analyses will address some of the outstanding controversies and questions relating to processed electroencephalography monitoring. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00682825