Anesthesia care in the interventional neuroradiology suite: an update

Adjuvant Analgesics in Acute Pain - Evaluation of Efficacy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Acute postoperative pain impacts a significant number of patients and is associated with various complications, such as a higher occurrence of chronic postsurgical pain as well as increased morbidity and mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

Opioids are often used to manage severe pain, but they come with serious adverse effects, such as sedation, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and impaired bowel function. Therefore, most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols promote multimodal analgesia, which includes adjuvant analgesics, to provide optimal pain control. In this article, we aim to offer a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature on adjuvant analgesics in the management of acute pain, especially in the perioperative setting. Adjuvant analgesics have proven efficacy in treating postoperative pain and reducing need for opioids. While ketamine is an established option for opioid-dependent patients, magnesium and α2-agonists have, in addition to their analgetic effect, the potential to attenuate hemodynamic responses, which make them especially useful in painful laparoscopic procedures. Furthermore, α2-agonists and dexamethasone can extend the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia techniques. However, findings for lidocaine remain inconclusive.

Team Relations and Role Perceptions During Anesthesia Crisis Management in Magnetic-Resonance Imaging Settings: A Mixed Methods Exploration

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of procedures are performed in non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) settings, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suites. Patient care in NORA is accomplished by interprofessional ad hoc teams (anesthesia clinicians, imaging technologists, and others), who do not regularly work together otherwise. The authors aimed to explore team relations and role perceptions during crisis situations in MRI settings among such ad hoc teams.

METHODS

This mixed methods study used a convergent parallel design: The Relational Coordination Index (RCI) and a survey about role perceptions were administered to anesthesia and non-anesthesia personnel working in MRI settings, and semistructured interviews were conducted among a purposive sample. After descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, the authors integrated quantitative and qualitative findings to identify and describe overlapping and mismatched perceptions between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 67 surveys (response rate 74.4%) and 17 interviews were analyzed. RCI ratings revealed moderate relational coordination between the anesthesia and non-anesthesia groups. Anesthesia and non-anesthesia respondents agreed that the anesthesia clinician assumes leadership during crisis management while non-anesthesia personnel assist. There were nuanced differences in expectations about the role of non-anesthesia personnel in calling for help, understanding specific equipment needs, and performing patient care actions. Many anesthesia clinicians felt unsure about crisis-relevant skills of their non-anesthesia colleagues. MRI technologists emphasized attention to magnetic safety as integral to their role, which was infrequently mentioned by anesthesia personnel.

CONCLUSION

Nuanced mismatches in role expectations within the interprofessional care team exist, which may hinder effective crisis management in MRI settings.

Comparison between remimazolam and propofol anaesthesia for interventional neuroradiology: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

General anaesthesia can immobile patients during interventional neuroradiology to improve image quality. Remimazolam, an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, is advantageous for haemodynamic stability. This study compared remimazolam and propofol anaesthesia during neuroradiology procedures regarding intraoperative hypotensive events and rapid recovery.

METHODS

This single-masked randomised-controlled study included 76 participants who underwent elective endovascular embolisation in a single centre. Patients were randomised between a continuous remimazolam infusion (n = 38) or a target-controlled propofol infusion group (n = 38). In the remimazolam group, flumazenil (0.2 mg) was administered at the end of the procedure. Phenylephrine was titrated to maintain the mean arterial pressure within ± 20% of the baseline value. The primary outcome was the total phenylephrine dose during the procedure.

RESULTS

The total phenylephrine dose was 0.0 [0.0-30.0] μg in the remimazolam group and 30.0 [0.0-205.0] μg in the propofol group (p = 0.001). Hypotensive events were observed in 11 (28.9%) patients in the remimazolam group and 23 (60.5%) patients in the propofol group (p = 0.001). Recovery times to spontaneous breathing, eye-opening, extubation, and orientation were shorter in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam anaesthesia showed superior haemodynamic stability compared with propofol anaesthesia during neuroradiology procedures. Systematic use of flumazenil enabled rapid recovery from remimazolam anaesthesia.

REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry; Registration number: UMIN000047384; URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000054046.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The choice of anesthesia type (general anesthesia [GA] vs nongeneral anesthesia [non-GA]) in middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) procedures for chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH) differs between institutions and left to care team discretion given lack of standard guidelines. We compare the outcomes of GA vs non-GA in MMAE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients receiving MMAE for cSDH at 14 North American centers (2018-2023) were included. Clinical, cSDH characteristics, and technical/clinical outcomes were compared between the GA/non-GA groups. Using propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched controlling for age, baseline modified Rankin Scale, concurrent/prior surgery, hematoma thickness/midline shift, and baseline antiplatelet/anticoagulation. The primary end points included surgical rescue and radiographic success rates (≥50% reduction in maximum hematoma thickness with minimum 2 weeks of imaging). Secondary end points included technical feasibility, procedural complications, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seventy-eight patients (median age 73 years, 73.2% male patients) underwent 956 MMAE procedures, 667 (70.4%) were non-GA and 280 were GA (29.6%). After running 1:3 PSM algorithm, this resulted in 153 and 296 in the GA and non-GA groups, respectively. There were no baseline/procedural differences between the groups except radial access more significantly used in the non-GA group (P = .001). There was no difference between the groups in procedural technical feasibility, complications rate, length of stay, surgical rescue rates, or favorable functional outcome at the last follow-up. Subsequent 1:1 sensitivity PSM retained the same results. Bilateral MMAE procedures were more performed under non-GA group (75.8% vs 67.2%; P = .01); no differences were noted in clinical/radiographic outcomes between bilateral vs unilateral MMAE, except for longer procedure duration in the bilateral group (median 73 minutes [IQR 48.3-100] vs 54 minutes [39-75]; P < .0001). Another PSM analysis comparing GA vs non-GA in patients undergoing stand-alone MMAE retained similar associations.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in radiological improvement/clinical outcomes between GA and non-GA for MMAE.