Faculty Bibliography

: A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study was designed to compare dexmedetomidine as a primary sedative agent with a commonly used drug combination in patients undergoing awake carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Sixty-six patients undergoing CEA (ASA II-IV) were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (total dose of 97.5 +/- 54.7 mcg) or normal saline (control). Supplemental doses of midazolam, fentanyl, and/or propofol were administered as deemed necessary by the anesthesiologist. An observer blinded to the study drug assessed sedation level (Observer's Assessment of Alertness-Sedation [OAA/S] scale). The primary outcomes were defined as the number of patients with an OAA/S score of 4 intraoperatively and an OAA/S score of 5 postoperatively. The authors also compared cardiorespiratory parameters, intra- and postoperative side effects, and complications. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the primary endpoints. All secondary parameters were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Three patients in the dexmedetomidine group (10%) had an OAA/S score of 4 at all four time points assessed intraoperatively, while no patient in the control group had a score of 4 at all the time points considered. Thirteen patients in the dexmedetomidine group had a score of 4 at three or more time points (42%) compared with six patients (19%) in the control group. Four patients in the control group (13%) and one patient in the dexmedetomidine group (3%) did not achieve a score of 4 at any of the four critical intraoperative time points (chi for association = 9.9, P < 0.05; chi for a trend = 8.6, P < 0.004, with the trend favoring dexmedetomidine). More patients in the control group required treatment with metoprolol (26% vs. 6%, P = 0.04) and labetalol (48% vs/ 6%, P < 0.01). Plasma levels of norepinephrine were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during and after surgery compared with the control group. Six patients (19%) in the dexmedetomidine group required intra-arterial shunts, while only two patients (6%) required shunts in the control group (P = 0.16). These data show that the use of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing awake CEA resulted in fewer fluctuations from the desired sedation level. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine required less antihypertensive therapy compared with the midazolam/fentanyl/propofol combination. The effect of dexmedetomidine on cerebrovascular circulation in the study population needs further investigation

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an advantage of thoracic over lumbar epidural narcotics for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. DESIGN: A prospective randomized study. SETTING: Subjects were inpatients at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two patients scheduled for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive lumbar or thoracic epidural narcotics. Group 1 (n = 26) had lumbar, and group 2 (n = 26) had thoracic epidural catheters placed preoperatively. All patients were monitored with pulmonary artery catheters and arterial catheters, and had general endotracheal anesthesia, in addition to epidural anesthesia with 2% lidocaine. All patients received 5 mg of epidural morphine after intubation. Pain scores were monitored hourly for 36 hours using a visual analog scale, and additional narcotics were given, depending on the level of pain. Complications caused by epidural narcotics were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups as to the daily dose of narcotics or the time between narcotic doses. Hourly pain scores showed significant differences during hours 6, 7, 8, 20, 34, and 36, with pain scores being lower in group 1. There was no difference in the rate of complications between the groups. CONCLUSION: There is no advantage of thoracic over lumbar epidural analgesia using morphine in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The finding of an association between the epsilon 4 allele of the APOE locus and the early expression of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) is robust. However, the estimates of the proportion of AD cases carrying one or more copies of the epsilon 4 allele vary dramatically between studies (highest estimates being 180% of lowest ones). Here we compare the results of association studies in samples drawn from an epidemiologically based study design and samples drawn from families selected for linkage studies. The significant differences between results probably point to the unwitting selection of familial factors other than the APOE locus in the family history positive samples. We conclude that any selection procedure tending to enrich samples for positive family history will also tend to artificially increase APOE epsilon 4 allele frequencies in probands. This is of significance in samples drawn from clinical settings where referral may be influenced by previous known family history. Further work is needed to clarify the nature of the additional factors operating within families. We also report data showing an association between late-onset AD and a polymorphism in an adjacent locus to APOE-the APOCI locus. As no additional risk for AD can be attributed to the APOCI locus, the most likely explanation for the association between AD and APOCI is the disequilibrium between the APOCI and APOE loci. Therefore, there are likely to be other genetic markers in the area that can be used in the same way as APOE as a marker of risk for the disease.

PURPOSE: The optimal anesthetic for use during carotid endarterectomy is controversial. Advocates of regional anesthesia suggest that it may reduce the incidence of perioperative complications in addition to decreasing operative time and hospital costs. To determine whether the anesthetic method correlated with the outcome of the operation, a retrospective review of 3975 carotid operations performed over a 32-year period was performed. METHODS: The records of all patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy at our institution from 1962 to 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. Operations performed with the patient under regional anesthesia were compared with those performed with the patient under general anesthesia with respect to preoperative risk factors and perioperative complications. RESULTS: Regional anesthesia was used in 3382 operations (85.1%). There were no significant differences in the age, gender ratio, or the rates of concomitant medical illness between the two patient populations. The frequency of perioperative stroke in the series was 2.2%; that of myocardial infarction, 1.7%; and that of perioperative death, 1.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death on the basis of anesthetic technique. A trend toward higher frequencies of perioperative stroke (3.2% vs 2.0%) and perioperative death (2.0% vs 1.4%) in the general anesthesia group was noted. In examining operative indications, however, there was a significant increase in the percentage of patients receiving general anesthesia who had sustained preoperative strokes when compared with the regional anesthesia patients (36.1% vs 26.4%; p < 0.01). There was also a statistically significant higher frequency of contralateral total occlusion in the general anesthesia group (21.8% vs 15.4%; p = 0.001). The trend toward increased perioperative strokes in the general anesthesia group may be explicable either by the above differences in the patient populations or by actual differences based on anesthetic technique that favor regional anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective review of a large series of carotid operations, regional anesthesia was shown to be applicable to the vast majority of patients with good clinical outcome. Although the advantages over general anesthesia are perhaps small, the versatility and safety of the technique is sufficient reason for vascular surgeons to include it in their armamentarium of surgical skills. Considering that carotid endarterectomy is a procedure in which complication rates are exceedingly low, a rigidly controlled, prospective randomized trial may be required to accurately assess these differences