Why the study?
Does continuous spinal anesthesia added to high-dose intravenous opioids reduce stress responses in children aged up to 24 months undergoing open heart surgery?
Does continuous spinal anesthesia added to high-dose intravenous opioids reduce stress responses in children aged up to 24 months undergoing open heart surgery?
Continuous spinal anesthesia added to high-dose intravenous opioids effectively reduces stress responses and lactate levels in infants undergoing open heart surgery, though it increases postoperative fluid requirements.
Supports adjunctive continuous spinal anesthesia to blunt stress responses in infant cardiac surgery; extends adult evidence to pediatric open-heart procedures.
Background. Extreme stress and inflammatory responses to open heart surgery are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Based on both animal and adult human data, it was hypothesized that spinal anesthesia would be more effective at attenuating these responses than conventional high dose intravenous opioid techniques in infants and young children undergoing open heart surgery.Methods. A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was performed in 60 children aged up to 24 months undergoing open heart surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either high-dose intravenous opioid or high-dose intravenous opioid plus spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was administered via an indwelling intrathecal catheter.Results. Spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the stress responses as measured by plasma norepinephrine and epinephrine concentrations (both P < 0.05). Spinal anesthesia reduced plasma lactate concentrations (P < 0.05), but increased fluid requirements during the first postoperative day (P < 0.05). There were no differences in other cardiovascular parameters.Conclusions. Continuous spinal anesthesia reduces stress responses in infants and young children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass more effectively than high-dose intravenous opioids alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Humphreys et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: