4.1 Article

General anesthetics and the developing brain

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 368-373

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e3283294c9e

关键词

anesthetics; brain; gamma-aminobutyrate; neonate; neuroapoptosis; neurotoxicity; N-methyl-D-aspartate; sedatives

资金

  1. Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review General anesthetics and sedatives are used in millions of children every year to facilitate surgical procedures, imaging studies, and sedation in operating rooms, radiology suites, emergency departments, and ICUs. Mounting evidence from animal studies suggests that prolonged exposure to these compounds may induce widespread neuronal cell death and neurological sequelae, seriously questioning the safety of pediatric anesthesia. This review presents recent developments in this rapidly emerging field. Recent findings In animals, all currently available anesthetics and sedatives that have been studied, such as ketamine, midazolam, diazepam, clonazepam, propofol, pentobarbital, chloral hydrate, halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, enflurane, nitrous oxide, and xenon, have been demonstrated to trigger widespread neurodegeneration in the immature brain. In humans, recent preliminary findings from epidemiological studies suggest an association between surgery and anesthesia early in life and subsequent learning abnormalities. Summary Neurodegeneration following exposure to anesthetics and sedatives has been clearly established in developing animals. However, while some of the biochemical pathways have been revealed, the phenomenon's particular molecular mechanisms remain unclear. As the phenomenon is difficult to study in humans, clinical evidence is still scarce and amounts to associative and not causal relationships. Owing to the lack of alternative anesthetics, further animal studies into the mechanism as well as clinical studies defining human susceptibility are both urgently needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据