| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
From the *Division of Cardiac Anesthesia, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Address correspondence to Francis X. McGowan, Jr., MD, Chief, Division of Cardiac Anesthesia, Children’s Hospital of Boston, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. Address e-mail to francis.mcgowan{at}childrens.harvard.edu.
This issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia contains seven varied articles that all relate in some way to the possibility of neuronal toxicity arising from the use of inhaled and certain IV anesthetics in the immature and developing animal.1–7 Although there is a fair amount of overlap in the content, the diligent reader should nevertheless be rewarded by a significantly improved understanding of the main aspects of this topic and the controversy that surrounds it.
The origins of this debate go back at least as far as 1999 when Dr. John Olney and colleagues reported in Science that N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, including MK801 and ketamine, produced evidence of neurotoxicity.8 Subsequently, his group and others demonstrated that many anesthetics, including nitrous oxide, isoflurane, and ketamine, appear to induce apoptotic changes in neurons, particularly in the brains of infant rodents (detailed in Refs. 1–4). In fact, this debate goes back at least to 1985, when Uemura et al. demonstrated diffuse effects of halothane on synaptic development and subsequent learning behavior in rats.9
Perhaps, these results are to be expected. Most neurotransmission in the developing brain is primarily due to NMDA- and/or 
-aminobutyric acid-dependent mechanisms, as is the regulation of neuronal developmental and synaptogenesis. There are at least two possible general mechanisms of pro-apoptotic and/or neurotic injury. The first is that receptor blockade by anesthetic drugs decreases "trophic" stimulation at a critical point in time, leading to induction of cell death programs (analogous to the effects of growth factor deprivation in a variety of cell types). The second is that the transient receptor blockade caused by anesthetic drugs results in subsequent receptor upregulation (protein expression and/or receptor activity). When the blocking anesthetic is removed, the affected neuron is subsequently subjected to significantly increased NMDA activity, resulting in increased excitatory amino acid neurotoxicity. The mechanisms remain largely unsolved, although the available evidence weakly suggests the second.
Regardless of the exact mechanisms, the available data raise the specter that standard clinical anesthesia practice could promote brain injury in the human fetus, infant, and young child. These reports taken together led the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to convene an Advisory Committee Meeting in April of 2007 (meeting transcript available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/docets/ac/07/transcripts/2007/4285t1.pdf). The purpose of the FDA meeting was to evaluate the potential neurodegenerative effects of anesthetics in infant and juvenile animals. The FDA panel focused on the data presented in a nearly contemporaneous comprehensive review.10
We personally believe that the evidence demonstrating the potential for different types of anesthetics to stimulate proapoptotic and neurotoxic events in infant rats and other species appears to be reasonably good. However, as the reader will also see, the extrapolation of the animal data to humans, and human infants in particular, is very tenuous. In the Pro/Con presentations from Jevtovic-Todorovic, Olney, Loepke, and Soriano, as well as the subsequent summaries by Loepke and from the FDA Group of Wang and Slikker, the reader can review the data that were presented to the FDA in great detail, as well as some new information. Reading these as companion pieces, one is able to follow the development of the evidence as well as its substantial and continued limitations. The article by Sanders et al.5 provides preliminary data that the phenomenon of anesthetic-induced neurodegeneration appears to occur, not surprisingly, in the neonatal rat spinal cord.
It is clear that the available data merit concern and further investigation. That said, many of the limitations pointed out in the articles by Loepke et al. persist. These limitations pertain to the experimental model, the anesthetic dose and/or concentration, the duration of the exposure (both absolute and in comparison to the human), and the developmental age and stage of the animal at the time of exposure. In some cases, the experimental methodologies used to assess effect and outcome have also been less than optimal.
Normal brain development requires significant expansion and growth of specific neurons and synapses as well as the targeted deletion of others. These processes are under the control of genetic, environmental, cellular, humoral, neurotransmitter, and trophic factors. Neuronal migration and synaptogenesis takes place along glial guide paths, with later-developing neurons that are migrating to cortical layers traveling past earlier developing ones that remain located in deeper brain layers closer to the germinal matrix. Specific factors that regulate this process of neuronal migration and synaptogenesis are not known, but increasing evidence again supports multiple layers of control, including genetic, neurotransmitter, excitatory amino acid, and neural cellular adhesion molecules. Depending upon the brain region, as many as half or more of all of the synaptic connections that were formed during the first one to two years of life will be absent within a few years thereafter. Which synapses are maintained and which are deleted are again influenced by a number of factors, including genetics, excitatory amino acid neurotransmitters, neuronal activity produced by external stimuli, and various trophic factors.
It appears that developing neurons can be induced to activate pathways resulting in cell death when their synaptic development, dendritic branching, and remodeling activities are interfered with. The period of rapid synaptogenesis appears to be the most vulnerable time. The intensity and duration of neurodevelopmental activity vary widely among different species. For example, in the newborn rat this peak period appears to be relatively confined to about the first postnatal week or two, peaking sharply on postnatal day 7 ("P7" in rat pups). It seems much more difficult, although not impossible, to induce neuroapoptosis with anesthetics in the rat at later developmental stages. This postconceptual age in the infant rat aligns with late second to early third trimester neurodevelopmental stages in the human. Nonetheless, in rodents, this period of rapid and critical synaptogenesis and related events is accomplished rapidly, probably within a few days to a few weeks. In subhuman primates, and probably in humans, the process appears to occur more slowly, over several months or perhaps even years.
Along with expected differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics among species, interspecies variations make experimental differences in dose, duration of exposure, and time of exposure, both critical and problematic in terms of extrapolation to humans. Even in the subhuman primate, arguably the closest situation to humans, the "window" to produce an anesthetic-induced neuroapoptotic effect appears to be relatively narrow compared with the period of synaptogenesis in humans.
Does the slower development in humans confer increased risk, because of the longer period of risk, or increased resistance, because a child would only be exposed to anesthetics for a brief fraction of the "at risk" period? It is hard to know. The broad window of vulnerability in the human may result in fewer vulnerable neurons or synapses at any given point in time, decreasing the potential for injury, and making such injury (if any) impossible to detect. This may explain why, despite the large number of annual pediatric anesthetics (estimated to be at least 4 million each year in the United States), a "phenotype" of brain injury in children exposed to anesthetics at a young age has not been described. On the other hand, a thorough and valid search for such a phenotype has not yet been conducted. There are certainly examples in anesthetic practice (e.g., toxicity due to intrathecal lidocaine) where safety has been assumed based on a long history apparently free from adverse events, only to subsequently find toxicity when it was rigorously investigated. It is also worth noting that infants and children do not undergo "elective" surgery. There are well documented adverse consequences of procedural delay (e.g., the former premature infant with inguinal hernias). Furthermore, procedural outcome data in a number of difference arenas (e.g., cardiac, orthopedic, craniofacial) suggest enhanced results (at least surgical, at times overall outcome) can be obtained from early repair compared with delayed repair.
The few studies that have attempted to address developmental problems arising from anesthesia and surgery have, by necessity, included infants with congenital or acquired abnormalities likely to have major impact upon neuroimaging results and neurobehavioral assessment (see Table 1 in the article by Loepke and Soriano3). For example, as many as 30%–40% of infants with significant congenital heart disease have structural or biochemical brain abnormalities before any intervention or surgery.11 A neonatal procedure as relatively straightforward as a balloon atrial septostomy in such patients may be associated with an 80% or more incidence of postprocedure brain abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging.12 Genetic syndromes such as velo-facial-cardiac syndrome (microdeletion of chromosome 22) are associated with congenital abnormalities that require infant surgery and developmental delay.13 Unpublished data from one fetal care center suggest that brain abnormalities (observed by fetal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging) may be found in as many as 25% of infants with a variety of nonbrain anomalies (F.X. McGowan, personal communication) The cosegregation of nonanesthetic causes of neurocognitive deficit with structural anomalies requiring surgical correction during infancy may render impossible clinical studies to assess the additional risk of anesthetic exposure. And if such risk exists, how do we weight that risk against the substantial evidence of harm to the developing brain from painful procedures in the absence of adequate pain relief.1,3,14 Lastly, some animal studies suggest that simple interventions, such as treatment with melatonin, can attenuate the risk of neurologic damage from anesthetic exposure.15 Should we give infants melatonin before surgery? Is it rational to give a drug with unknown toxicity to infants to protect them from hypothetical anesthetic toxicity that has never been shown to occur in infants?
Based on these issues, what actions are clearly indicated at the present time?
-aminobutyric acid and NMDA receptors. Thus, understanding developmental neurotoxicity as it applies to the administration of anesthesia to pregnant women, infants, and children requires acknowledging the importance of the research conducted to date as well as its limitations. It requires a plan to move forward. We must acknowledge that virtually all pediatric surgical procedures are necessary, without alternatives, and require anesthesia. And, perhaps most critical to frame this discussion in the broader clinical context, we must acknowledge that our primary goal in anesthesia risk management in children is avoiding hypoxia and cardiovascular collapse. These known and understood causes of brain injury and death in pediatric patients during anesthesia are the real enemy. We must not let our enthusiasm for understanding the possible neurocognitive risks of anesthetics in children obscure our awareness of this enemy or prevent us from alleviating pain.
We have much to do.
 |
Footnotes |
|---|
Reprints will not be available from the author.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
 Top REFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. W. Loepke, G. K. Istaphanous, J. J. McAuliffe III, L. Miles, E. A. Hughes, J. C. McCann, K. E. Harlow, C. D. Kurth, M. T. Williams, C. V. Vorhees, et al. The Effects of Neonatal Isoflurane Exposure in Mice on Brain Cell Viability, Adult Behavior, Learning, and Memory Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2009; 108(1): 90 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
