Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the pediatric population: a systematic review of the clinical evidence

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.56126/71.2.2
R. Foubert, S. Devroe, L. Foubert, M. Van de Velde, S. Rex
{"title":"Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the pediatric population: a systematic review of the clinical evidence","authors":"R. Foubert, S. Devroe, L. Foubert, M. Van de Velde, S. Rex","doi":"10.56126/71.2.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Exposure to general anesthesia (GA) in early life is known to be neurotoxic to animals.\n\nObjectives: To evaluate the risk of GA inducing long-term neurodevelopmental deficits in human children.\n\nDesign: Systematic review.\n\nMethods: We included observational and randomized studies that compared the long-term neurodevelopment of postnatal children exposed to GA to the long-term neurodevelopment of children not exposed to GA. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science for relevant studies published in the year 2000 or later. We screened all the identified studies on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A risk of bias assessment was made for each included study. We identified 9 neurodevelopmental domains for which a sub-analysis was made: intelligence; memory; learning; language/speech; motor function; visuospatial skills; development/emotions/behavior; ADHD/attention; autistic disorder.\n\nResults: We included 26 studies involving 605.391 participants. Based on AHRQ-standards 11 studies were of poor quality, 7 studies were of fair quality and 8 studies were of good quality. The major causes of potential bias were selection and comparability bias. On 2 neurodevelopmental domains (visuospatial skills and autistic disorder), the available evidence showed no association with exposure to GA. On 7 other neurodevelopmental domains, the available evidence showed mixed results. The 4 studies that used a randomized or sibling-controlled design showed no association between GA and neurodevelopmental deficits in their primary endpoints.\n\nLimitations: The absence of a meta-analysis and funnel plot.\n\nConclusions: Based on observational studies, we found an association between GA in childhood and neuro-developmental deficits in later life. Randomized and sibling-matched observational studies failed to show the same association and therefore no evidence of a causal relationship exists at present. Since GA seems to be a marker, but not a cause of worse neurodevelopment, we argue against delaying or avoiding interventional or diagnostic procedures requiring GA in childhood based on the argument of GA-induced neurotoxicity.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/71.2.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Exposure to general anesthesia (GA) in early life is known to be neurotoxic to animals. Objectives: To evaluate the risk of GA inducing long-term neurodevelopmental deficits in human children. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We included observational and randomized studies that compared the long-term neurodevelopment of postnatal children exposed to GA to the long-term neurodevelopment of children not exposed to GA. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science for relevant studies published in the year 2000 or later. We screened all the identified studies on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A risk of bias assessment was made for each included study. We identified 9 neurodevelopmental domains for which a sub-analysis was made: intelligence; memory; learning; language/speech; motor function; visuospatial skills; development/emotions/behavior; ADHD/attention; autistic disorder. Results: We included 26 studies involving 605.391 participants. Based on AHRQ-standards 11 studies were of poor quality, 7 studies were of fair quality and 8 studies were of good quality. The major causes of potential bias were selection and comparability bias. On 2 neurodevelopmental domains (visuospatial skills and autistic disorder), the available evidence showed no association with exposure to GA. On 7 other neurodevelopmental domains, the available evidence showed mixed results. The 4 studies that used a randomized or sibling-controlled design showed no association between GA and neurodevelopmental deficits in their primary endpoints. Limitations: The absence of a meta-analysis and funnel plot. Conclusions: Based on observational studies, we found an association between GA in childhood and neuro-developmental deficits in later life. Randomized and sibling-matched observational studies failed to show the same association and therefore no evidence of a causal relationship exists at present. Since GA seems to be a marker, but not a cause of worse neurodevelopment, we argue against delaying or avoiding interventional or diagnostic procedures requiring GA in childhood based on the argument of GA-induced neurotoxicity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉神经毒性在儿科人群:临床证据的系统回顾
背景:众所周知,早期全身麻醉对动物具有神经毒性。目的:评估GA诱导人类儿童长期神经发育缺陷的风险。设计:系统审查。方法:我们纳入了观察性和随机研究,比较了暴露于GA的出生后儿童的长期神经发育与未暴露于GA儿童的长期神经元发育。我们在MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science上搜索了2000年或更晚发表的相关研究。我们根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准筛选了所有已确定的研究。对每项纳入的研究进行偏倚风险评估。我们确定了9个神经发育领域,并对其进行了子分析:智力;记忆力学习语言/言语;运动功能;视觉空间技能;发展/情绪/行为;ADHD/注意力;自闭症。结果:我们纳入了26项研究,涉及605.391名参与者。根据AHRQ标准,11项研究质量较差,7项研究质量尚可,8项研究质量良好。潜在偏差的主要原因是选择和可比性偏差。在2个神经发育领域(视觉空间技能和自闭症),现有证据显示与GA暴露无关。在其他7个神经发育方面,现有证据表明结果喜忧参半。使用随机或兄弟姐妹对照设计的4项研究显示,GA与主要终点的神经发育缺陷之间没有关联。局限性:缺乏荟萃分析和漏斗图。结论:基于观察性研究,我们发现儿童期GA与晚年神经发育缺陷之间存在关联。随机和兄弟姐妹匹配的观察性研究未能显示出相同的关联,因此目前没有证据表明存在因果关系。由于GA似乎是一种标志物,但不是神经发育恶化的原因,我们反对基于GA诱导的神经毒性的论点,推迟或避免儿童期需要GA的介入或诊断程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
期刊最新文献
The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Belgian hospitals: Changes in use, knowledge, opinions and perception of pressure among operating room professionals between 2016 and 2021 Herpes simplex virus reactivation among severe COVID-19 patients: to treat or not to treat? Assessing fluid shifts in the pediatric surgical patient: is bioimpedance a promising tool Incidence of brachial plexus injury after cardiac surgery: a retrospective study Catheter-based serratus anterior plane block vs. continuous wound infiltration for postoperative pain control following minimally invasive atrioventricular valve surgery : a randomized, prospective trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1