1
|
Du M, Zhu Y, Wang C, Xu J. Investigation of Parental Acceptance of General Anesthesia with Mask Induction in Children Undergoing Frenulectomy. J Perianesth Nurs 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2021.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2021] [Revised: 05/31/2021] [Accepted: 06/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
2
|
Sun M, Xie Z, Zhang J, Leng Y. Mechanistic insight into sevoflurane-associated developmental neurotoxicity. Cell Biol Toxicol 2022; 38:927-943. [PMID: 34766256 PMCID: PMC9750936 DOI: 10.1007/s10565-021-09677-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 10/21/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
With the development of technology, more infants receive general anesthesia for surgery, other interventions, or clinical examination at an early stage after birth. However, whether general anesthetics can affect the function and structure of the developing infant brain remains an important, complex, and controversial issue. Sevoflurane is the most-used anesthetic in infants, but this drug is potentially neurotoxic. Short or single exposure to sevoflurane has a weak effect on cognitive function, while long or repeated exposure to general anesthetics may cause cognitive dysfunction. This review focuses on the mechanisms by which sevoflurane exposure during development may induce long-lasting undesirable effects on the brain. We review neural cell death, neural cell damage, impaired assembly and plasticity of neural circuits, tau phosphorylation, and neuroendocrine effects as important mechanisms for sevoflurane-induced developmental neurotoxicity. More advanced technologies and methods should be applied to determine the underlying mechanism(s) and guide prevention and treatment of sevoflurane-induced neurotoxicity. 1. We discuss the mechanisms underlying sevoflurane-induced developmental neurotoxicity from five perspectives: neural cell death, neural cell damage, assembly and plasticity of neural circuits, tau phosphorylation, and neuroendocrine effects.
2. Tau phosphorylation, IL-6, and mitochondrial dysfunction could interact with each other to cause a nerve damage loop.
3. miRNAs and lncRNAs are associated with sevoflurane-induced neurotoxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mingyang Sun
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu People’s Republic of China 730000 ,Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Center for Clinical Single Cell Biomedicine, Henan Provincial People’s Hospital, People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan People’s Republic of China 450003
| | - Zhongcong Xie
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
| | - Jiaqiang Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Center for Clinical Single Cell Biomedicine, Henan Provincial People’s Hospital, People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan People’s Republic of China 450003
| | - Yufang Leng
- Day Surgery Center, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu People’s Republic of China 730000
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Floyd TF, Khmara K, Lamm R, Seidman P. Hypoxia, hypercarbia, and mortality reporting in studies of anaesthesia-related neonatal neurodevelopmental delay in rodent models: A systematic review. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2020; 37:70-84. [DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000001105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
4
|
Johnson SC, Pan A, Sun GX, Freed A, Stokes JC, Bornstein R, Witkowski M, Li L, Ford JM, Howard CRA, Sedensky MM, Morgan PG. Relevance of experimental paradigms of anesthesia induced neurotoxicity in the mouse. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0213543. [PMID: 30897103 PMCID: PMC6428290 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 02/24/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Routine general anesthesia is considered to be safe in healthy individuals. However, pre-clinical studies in mice, rats, and monkeys have repeatedly demonstrated that exposure to anesthetic agents during early post-natal periods can lead to acute neurotoxicity. More concerning, later-life defects in cognition, assessed by behavioral assays for learning and memory, have been reported. Although the potential for anesthetics to damage the neonatal brain is well-documented, the clinical significance of the pre-clinical models in which damage is induced remains quite unclear. Here, we systematically evaluate critical physiological parameters in post-natal day 7 neonatal mice exposed to 1.5% isoflurane for 2–4 hours, the most common anesthesia induced neurotoxicity paradigm in this animal model. We find that 2 or more hours of anesthesia exposure results in dramatic respiratory and metabolic changes that may limit interpretation of this paradigm to the clinical situation. Our data indicate that neonatal mouse models of AIN are not necessarily appropriate representations of human exposures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon C. Johnson
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Department of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Amanda Pan
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Grace X. Sun
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Arielle Freed
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Julia C. Stokes
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Rebecca Bornstein
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Michael Witkowski
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Li Li
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Jeremy M. Ford
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Seattle Children's Imagination Lab, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Christopher R. A. Howard
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Seattle Children's Imagination Lab, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Margaret M. Sedensky
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Philip G. Morgan
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Johnson SC, Pan A, Li L, Sedensky M, Morgan P. Neurotoxicity of anesthetics: Mechanisms and meaning from mouse intervention studies. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2018; 71:22-31. [PMID: 30472095 DOI: 10.1016/j.ntt.2018.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2018] [Revised: 11/02/2018] [Accepted: 11/21/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Volatile anesthetics are widely used in human medicine and generally considered to be safe in healthy individuals. In recent years, the safety of volatile anesthesia in pediatric patients has been questioned following reports of anesthetic induced neurotoxicity in pre-clinical studies. These studies in mice, rats, and primates have demonstrated that exposure to anesthetic agents during early post-natal periods can cause acute neurotoxicity, as well as later-life cognitive defects including deficits in learning and memory. In recent years, the focus of many pre-clinical studies has been on identifying candidate pathways or potential therapeutic targets through intervention trials. These reports have shed light on the mechanisms underlying anesthesia induced neurotoxicity as well as highlighting the challenges of pre-clinical modeling of anesthesia induced neurotoxicity in mice. Here, we summarize the data derived from intervention studies in neonatal mouse models of anesthetic exposure and provide an overview of mechanisms proposed to mediate anesthesia induced neurotoxicity in mice based on these reports. The majority of these studies implicate one of three mechanisms: reactive oxygen species (ROS) mediated stress and signaling, growth/nutrient signaling, or direct neuronal modulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon C Johnson
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States of America.
| | - Amanda Pan
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States of America
| | - Li Li
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States of America; Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Margaret Sedensky
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States of America; Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Philip Morgan
- Center for Integrative Brain Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States of America; Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tian Y, Chen KY, Liu LD, Dong YX, Zhao P, Guo SB. Sevoflurane Exacerbates Cognitive Impairment Induced by A β 1-40 in Rats through Initiating Neurotoxicity, Neuroinflammation, and Neuronal Apoptosis in Rat Hippocampus. Mediators Inflamm 2018; 2018:3802324. [PMID: 30402039 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3802324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 07/25/2018] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective This study was aimed at investigating whether sevoflurane inhalation induced cognitive impairment in rats with a possible mechanism involved in the event. Methods Thirty-two rats were randomly divided into four groups of normal saline (NS) + O2, NS + sevoflurane (sevo), amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) + O2, and Aβ + sevo. The rats in the four groups received bilateral intrahippocampus injections of NS or Aβ. The treated hippocampus was harvested after inhaling 30% O2 or 2.5% sevoflurane. Evaluation of cognitive function was performed by Morris water maze (MWZ) and an Aβ1–42 level was determined by ELISA. Protein and mRNA expressions were executed by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, Western blotting, and qRT-PCR. Results Compared with the NS-treated group, sevoflurane only caused cognitive impairment and increased the level of Aβ1–42 of the brain in the Aβ-treated group. Sevoflurane inhalation but not O2 significantly increased glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule (IBA)1 expression in Aβ-treated hippocampus of rats. Expression levels for Bcl-xL, caspase-9, receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were significantly different in quantification of band intensity between the rats that inhaled O2 and sevoflurane in Aβ-treated groups (all P < 0.05). Interleukin- (IL-) 1β, nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) mRNA expression increased after the rats inhaled sevoflurane in the Aβ-treated group (both P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the change of GFAP, IBA1, Bcl-xL, caspase-9, RAGE, BDNF, IL-1β, NF-κB, and iNOS in the NS + O2 and NS + sevo group (all P > 0.05). Conclusion Sevoflurane exacerbates cognitive impairment induced by Aβ1–40 in rats through initiating neurotoxicity, neuroinflammation, and neuronal apoptosis in rat hippocampus.
Collapse
|
7
|
|
8
|
Abstract
Our goal was to evaluate how dental treatments under general anesthesia (GA) affect the quality of life by a prospective pair-matched design. Pediatric patients, who had received dental treatments under GA, were enrolled and were asked to complete the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) before the treatment and 1 month after the treatment. To shield the observed impacts, a pair-matched control group was performed. Patients in the control group were also required to complete the ECOHIS at these different points in time. In both groups, the items of troubled sleep and oral/dental pain scored highest, whereas avoiding smiling or laughing and avoiding talking scored lowest before the treatment. The total mean score in the 2 groups was 13.1 and 13.7, respectively, and there was no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). However, the total mean score was 1.9 in the experimental group after the treatment and smaller compared with the control group (1.9 vs. 4.7, P < 0.001). The majority of the items in both groups had an apparent effect size and the total mean effect in the experimental group was greater than that in the control group (85.5% vs. 65.7%, P < 0.001). Therefore, dental treatment under GA could provide better quality of life restoration compared with treatment over multiple visits.
Collapse
|