Key result
Rigorous neurobehavioral tool selection remains critical to reliably detect post-cardiac surgery brain dysfunction.
Why the study?
Neurobehavioral dysfunction remains a major negative outcome after cardiac surgery despite low death and major cerebral infarction rates, necessitating sensitive and reproducible brain function assessments.
Highlights the need for sensitive, reproducible, and quick neurobehavioral assessment tools to evaluate and mitigate brain injury associated with cardiac surgery.
May encourage standardized neurobehavioral screening after cardiac surgery; leaves open validation of optimal tools in prospective trials.
The outcome most dreaded by patient and surgeon alike is a brain dysfunction. Numerous surveys indicate most patients would prefer death to significant neurological impairment. Cardiac surgery currently enjoys a remarkable safety record in regard to a low death rate and major cerebral infarctions. However, neurobehavioral dysfunction, i.e. memory, coordination, and attention deficits, continues to be an area that is identified in the literature as a major negative outcome associated with cardiac surgery. If the cardiac surgical community is going to eliminate brain injury associated with interoperative methods and apparatus, then a sensitive, reproducible and quick assessment of brain function that can be reliably correlated with surgical interventions is a basic requirement. This paper discusses the experimental design, environmental and statistical concerns relative to selecting a battery of neurobehavioral assessment tools appropriate for cardiac surgery patients so, as a team, we can make a safe operation safer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David A. Stump (2002) conducted a review in Cardiac surgery. Neurobehavioral assessment tools was evaluated. Neurobehavioral assessment tools require careful selection based on experimental design and statistical concerns to reliably evaluate brain dysfunction in cardiac surgery patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: