Nav: Home

The Lancet: General anesthesia is unlikely to have lasting effects on the developing brains of young children

February 14, 2019

A single hour of general anaesthesia in early infancy--longer than is necessary to perform the most common types of minor surgeries in childhood--does not result in measurable neurodevelopmental or behavioural problems up to the age of 5 years, according to the first randomised trial of its kind involving 722 infants in seven countries, published in The Lancet.

The trial provides the strongest evidence to date that one brief exposure to anaesthesia is safe in young children. Nevertheless, the authors caution that most (84%) study participants were male and more research is needed to confirm the findings in girls and children with multiple and prolonged exposure to anaesthesia.

"Nearly half the general anaesthetics given to infants are used for less than one hour, therefore our findings should reassure health professionals and the millions of parents whose young children undergo surgical or diagnostic procedures with anaesthetic drugs worldwide every year," says Professor Andrew Davidson, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia, who led the study. [1]

"Parents and clinicians may want to delay necessary procedures--particularly in very young children. These findings mean children no longer need to be subjected to the potential medical and developmental risks of delaying surgery, and anaesthetists do not have to avoid general anaesthetics in favour of less well established anaesthetic techniques." [1]

The study is the first randomised trial to investigate whether exposure to general anaesthesia in infancy (aged 60 weeks of postmenstrual age or younger), a time of high brain vulnerability, negatively impacts the growing brain at age 5.

During the first 3 years of life, around 1 in 10 children in developed countries--equating to millions of children every year--undergo surgical, medical, and diagnostic procedures under general anaesthesia including hernia repair, tonsillectomy, imaging, and endoscopies.

For over a decade, the potential neurotoxicity of commonly used anaesthetic drugs in children has been debated. In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration warned that prolonged or repeated anaesthesia in children younger than 3 years of age might affect brain development. However, this warning was based largely on animal studies which showed increased cell death in developing animals.

So far, research in humans has been limited to observational studies that have reported conflicting findings, and are unable to conclude whether anaesthesia itself is causing problems, or if other factors such as the underlying medical conditions that make surgery necessary, or the surgical procedure itself, might be to blame.

To provide more evidence, the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) study recruited 722 children undergoing surgical repair of inguinal hernia (one of the most common operations of early childhood) at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand between February 2007 and January 2013. Participants were randomly assigned to general anaesthesia (363 children) or awake-regional (local) anaesthesia (which does not cause brain injury in animal models; 359 children).

In 2016, interim results found that neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 2 years did not significantly differ between the general anaesthesia and awake-regional groups.

Here, the researchers report the final results of the GAS trial at 5 years of age--a time when intelligence testing is strongly predictive of future achievement. Child psychologists used standard measures to assess the children's IQ score, memory, attention, executive function (skills that help with memory, impulse control, and planning), and behaviour.

Due to deviations from the treatment protocol (some children in the awake-regional group also had to be given a general anaesthetic) and loss to follow up, only 205 of 363 children in the awake-regional group and 242 of 359 children in the general anaesthesia group were included in the final analysis. The average duration of general anaesthesia was 54 minutes.

Results showed no significant difference in IQ scores between the children exposed to general anaesthesia (average IQ score 98.87) and awake-regional anaesthesia (99.08), after adjusting for age at birth and country, and accounting missing data. There were no significant differences in a range of other tests of neurocognitive function.

The authors note several limitations, including that there were a substantial number of deviations from the treatment protocol in the awake-regional group because children had to be given general anaesthesia, and a number of children were lost to follow up over the 5 years. They also point out that although several general anaesthetics are commonly used in children, participants in the trial only received sevoflurane, which could limit the generalisability of the findings. Additionally, 5 years of age may be too young to detect some executive functions and social-emotional skills which do not develop until later in life.

Commenting on the implications of the findings, Dr James O'Leary from the University of Toronto in Canada says that the study provides the "strongest evidence to date" that a single, brief exposure to general anaesthesia during infancy is not harmful to neurodevelopment. However, he cautions: "Adverse neurodevelopment in childhood results from interactions among multiple risk and protective factors, including health-care-related, genetic, familial, and environmental factors. Consequently, potential contributing factors other than general anaesthesia (eg, type of surgery, sex [84% of study participants were male]) should be considered when interpreting and generalising these findings. Perhaps most importantly, the study results cannot be extrapolated to children who undergo prolonged or repeated exposures to general anaesthesia or receive multiple anaesthetic drugs for the same surgical procedure...Whether anaesthesia causes neurological injury in patients under these conditions remains to be established."
-end-
Peer-reviewed / Randomised Controlled Trial / People

NOTES TO EDITORS

This study was funded by US National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Thrasher Research Fund, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research (UK), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Health, Fonds NutsOhra, UK Clinical Research Network, Perth Children's Hospital Foundation, the Stan Perron Charitable Trust, and the Callahan Estate.

It was conducted by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, USA; Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands; University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, Scotland, UK; University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Ospedale Pediatrico Vittore Buzzi, Milan, Italy; The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.

The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com

[1] Quotes direct from author and cannot be found in text of Article.

The Lancet

Related Infants Articles:

Deaf infants' gaze behavior more advanced than that of hearing infants
Deaf infants who have been exposed to American Sign Language are better at following an adult's gaze than their hearing peers, supporting the idea that social-cognitive development is sensitive to different kinds of life experiences.
Initiating breastfeeding in vulnerable infants
The benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child are well-recognized, including for late preterm infants (LPI).
Young infants with fever may be more likely to develop infections
Infants with a high fever may be at increased risk for infections, according to research from Penn State College of Medicine.
Early term infants less likely to breastfeed
A new, prospective study provides evidence that 'early term' infants (those born at 37-38 weeks) are less likely than full-term infants to be breastfeed within the first hour and at one month after birth.
Infants are more likely to learn when with a peer
Researchers at the University of Connecticut and University of Washington looked at the mechanisms involved in language learning among nine-month-olds, the youngest population known to be studied in relation to on-screen learning.
Allergic reactions to foods are milder in infants
Majority of infants with food-induced anaphylaxis present with hives and vomiting, suggesting there is less concern for life-threatening response to early food introduction.
Non-dairy drinks can be dangerous for infants
A brief report published in Acta Paediatrica points to the dangers of replacing breast milk or infant formula with a non-dairy drink before one year of age.
Infants can't talk, but they know how to reason
A new study reveals that preverbal infants are able to make rational deductions, showing surprise when an outcome does not occur as expected.
Infants are able to learn abstract rules visually
Three-month-old babies cannot sit up or roll over, yet they are already capable of learning patterns from simply looking at the world around them, according to a recent Northwestern University study published in PLOS One.
Baby brains help infants figure it out before they try it out
Researchers at Penn State are using new statistical analysis methods to compare how we observe infants develop new skills with the unseen changes in electrical activity in the brain, or electroencephalography (EEG) power.
More Infants News and Infants Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Rethinking Anger
Anger is universal and complex: it can be quiet, festering, justified, vengeful, and destructive. This hour, TED speakers explore the many sides of anger, why we need it, and who's allowed to feel it. Guests include psychologists Ryan Martin and Russell Kolts, writer Soraya Chemaly, former talk radio host Lisa Fritsch, and business professor Dan Moshavi.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#538 Nobels and Astrophysics
This week we start with this year's physics Nobel Prize awarded to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz and finish with a discussion of the Nobel Prizes as a way to award and highlight important science. Are they still relevant? When science breakthroughs are built on the backs of hundreds -- and sometimes thousands -- of people's hard work, how do you pick just three to highlight? Join host Rachelle Saunders and astrophysicist, author, and science communicator Ethan Siegel for their chat about astrophysics and Nobel Prizes.