Skip to main content

Neonatal Anesthesia Linked to Childhood Neurotoxicity?


NEW ORLEANS — Although much of the data come from preclinical and observational studies, evidence is mounting that exposure to anesthesia in early childhood may increase the risk for learning disabilities and other forms of neurodevelopmental impairment in adolescence, according to speakers at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 National Conference and Exhibition.
"Concerns regarding the safety of anesthetics in young children have been present within anesthesiology for most of the past decade, and the concern is spreading," said Randall Flick, MD, MPH, associate professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics and chair of pediatric anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
But, in spite of noticeable trends, he urged pediatricians not to jump to conclusions and change their practices yet.
Preclinical Evidence of Neurotoxicity
Sulpicio G. Soriano, MD, professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said the scientific evidence is "irrefutable" that exposure to anesthetic drugs induces neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental disorders in laboratory animals.
Dr. Soriano has led some of the seminal work on the effects of ketamine in infant laboratory animals.
"Recent studies question the safety of the anesthetic drugs we use. Are we causing actual harm to our patients?" he asked during the session. He believes preclinical studies are very informative on this question.
Although a single dose of ketamine in young lab animals does not appear to increase neurodegeneration, continuous infusion (> 9 hours) induces apoptosis of neurons. Likewise, in primates, large and continuous doses of ketamine (24-hour exposure) increase neuronal apoptosis and necrosis in the fetal period, and in 5-day-old animals, it is associated with long-lasting cognitive declines.
Similarly, a single exposure to sevoflurane does not impact tests of neurocognitive function in mice, but 2 hours of exposure over 3 days is associated with neurocognitive decline.
Isoflurane also affects neurogenesis and long-term neurocognitive function, Dr. Soriano noted. Rats exposed to isoflurane in utero during early gestation are behaviorally abnormal as adults, showing deficits in locomotor activity, hippocampal-dependent learning and memory, and increased anxiety.
"There is a time-dependent and dose-dependent increase in neuroapoptosis, and there are functional consequences," he reported.
But Dr. Soriano cautioned against overextrapolation to human neonates. "Human babies are not large rat pups!" he emphasized. "And in laboratory experiments, we use doses 7 times higher than we use in humans, and use them for longer durations. There are problems with animal experiments, but [this does demonstrate] causation."
The Human Evidence
"The available human studies cannot exclude the possibility that the anesthesia-induced neurotoxicity observed in many animal studies may also occur in children," Dr. Flick said in his presentation.
Although there have been about a dozen studies in young children, all are retrospective and observational, and all rely on existing databases, and therefore, "all are flawed," he cautioned.
Nevertheless, he added, "virtually every drug we use in the care of children is implicated. We cannot say with certainty that any are safe."
These include gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonists, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) antagonists, benzodiazepines, propofol/barbiturates, nitrous oxide, volatile agents, ketamine, and etomidate.
Mayo Clinic Studies
The Mayo Clinic has produced much of the work in this area, involving some of the largest cohorts, and Dr. Frick described their findings.
The Rochester Learning Disabilities Birth Cohort includes 5718 children born from 1976 to 1982 and for whom records are available from schools, medical providers, and reading/dyslexia centers. Participants were individually administered intelligence quotient (IQ) and achievement tests for diagnosing learning disabilities before age 19. Of this large cohort, 593 children received general anesthesia before age 4, allowing investigators to look for associations between anesthetic exposure and the development of a learning disability.
In the oft-quoted Wilder study, which Dr. Frick coauthored, duration of anesthesia was shown to be important (Wilder RT et al, Anesthesiology 2009;110:796-804). A single exposure did not increase risk, but the hazard ratio for children receiving 2 anesthetics was 1.59, and the hazard ratio for those receiving 3 or more was 2.60.
Although 20% of children with 1 exposure had a learning disability — a rate no different from that of the unexposed children — this rose to 35% among children with multiple exposures, Dr. Frick reported.
The risk for a learning disability increased with longer cumulative duration of exposure, with the hazard ratio reaching 1.56 with exposure ≥ 120 minutes.
"These differences were not subtle," he noted. Differences persisted even after controlling for comorbidities related to learning disabilities. Differences were also shown with respect to other endpoints, including speech and language deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Other Studies, Mixed Results
Not all studies have been as clear, though taken as a group, the trend is for multiple exposures to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.
In a 2009 discordance study of 1143 monozygotic twin pairs, early exposure to anesthesia (< age 3) was not associated with a difference in school performance compared with the unexposed twin, though this study relied on parental reporting of anesthesia exposure (Bartels M et al, Twin Res Hum Gen 2009;12:246-253).
But in another retrospective cohort study that year, the 383 children who underwent inguinal hernia repair before age 3 had a 2.3 increased risk for a developmental or behavioral disorder, compared with control participants (DiMaggio C et al, J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2009;21:286-91). In a second study by the same authors, a single exposure did not increase these risks in comparison with siblings, though multiple exposures did (DiMaggio C et al, Anesth Analg 2001;113:1143-51).
In a very large national cohort study from Denmark involving 2689 children who underwent inguinal hernia repair in infancy, no evidence was found that a single, relatively brief anesthetic exposure reduced academic performance in adolescence (Hansen TG et al, Anesthesiology 2011;114:1076-85).
In the most recent study, from the University of Iowa, duration of surgery and anesthesia correlated negatively with scores on academic achievement tests; however, the authors felt that "other explanations," such as referral bias, were possible (Block RI et al, Anesthesiology 2012;117:494-503).
What the Studies Mean: "Enormous Public Health Problem"
"We have to be careful about interpreting observational studies," Dr. Frick emphasized, "but if there is an increased likelihood of a learning disability after anesthesia exposure, studies indicate that for every 6 children exposed to multiple anesthetics, 1 additional child will develop a learning disability who would not otherwise. This suggests we have an enormous public health problem that must be addressed."
Summing up "what is known," he made the following points:
  • Single anesthetics do not seem to have an effect.
  • Repeated anesthetic exposures consistently show an effect.
  • The effect persists despite adjustment for comorbidity.
  • Learning (reasoning), speech, and language but not behavior appear to be affected.
  • ADHD follows a similar pattern.
  • There are many opportunities for bias, confounding, and so forth in observational studies.
Three large prospective trials are being initiated or are already in progress, and these may provide a better quality of evidence on which to base decisions, Dr. Flick explained.
Meanwhile, what should pediatricians tell parents? "That the associations are not necessarily causal," Dr. Flick advised, "and that brief, single-anesthetic exposures do not seem to cause problems."
As for providers, he maintained, "We need more information before we change our practice, which could have unintended consequences."
Dr. Soriano agreed. "Have I changed my practice? I flat out say 'no.' "
Subspecialists Express Concern
Several subspecialists who participated in a panel discussion after the presentation said the findings are alarming.
Diego Preciado, MD, a pediatric laryngologist at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, said, "These talks are very salient to our practice and very concerning."
"We treat many children with airway disorders, and they are repeat offenders. Some have had surgery more than 30 times, and many are under prolonged sedation — for example, when we do airway reconstruction. This is a group that is ripe to study, and we clearly need more information on these risks."
Brian Shaw, MD, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in Roanoke, Virginia, commented, "This is big news to me. I haven't given much thought to anesthesia risk."
He said his specialty is in an ideal position to make changes. "We can do so much now under regional anesthesia, and we can give nerve blocks to reduce the amount of general anesthesia we need," he said. "The good news is that general anesthesia is usually a single exposure in orthopedic surgery, and also, many procedures — such as simple deformities — can be delayed or deferred until the child gets a little older. These findings may change some of our practices."
Dr. Soriano, Dr. Flick, Dr. Preciado, and Dr. Shaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 National Conference and Exhibition. Presented October 20, 2012.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...