Talk:Anesthesia awareness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks to whoever provided this article. it's an important topic!

Things we should add at some time

1. distinction between GA and sedation
2. why only an issue during paralysis and explain that a bit better
3. more common under ga for severe trauma and c/s
4. outdate fentanyl anaestheisa

Erich 01:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

and anybody know exactly what this means: It is also highly comorbid with alcoholism? (cause its not clear at all to me) Erich 08:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought it meant that many Anesthesia awareness victims become Alcoholics. I don't know if it is true or not. --Michael L. Kaufman 14:37, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

well PTSD is associated with alcoholism and aother forms of substance abuse but unless the association is stronger with awareness then the comment just seems a bit distracting to me. You weren't the original contributor of this page by any chance were you? Erich 23:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Please visit www.anesthesiaawareness.com. I, too, disagree with the comment about alcoholism. However, the symptoms and sequelae of PTSD are life-changing for victims of awareness. The hesitation of the anesthesia community, especially the leadership of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, is abhorrent. Awareness is like "being entombed in a corpse" and the memory NEVER goes away. [Carol Weihrer, President, Anesthesia Awareness Campaign, Inc.]

Awareness is associated with alcoholism because those with a tolerance (think "resistance") to the sedative effects of alcohol also have a tolerance to the sedative effects of most anesthetics. Therefore, usual doses of anesthetics may not be sufficient to assure amnesia for an alcoholic patient. (Peter M. Lucas, MD, Anesthesiologist)

GA (general anesthesia) is the term used for a completely unconscious and unresponsive state. Such as would be required for a major surgery. Sedation refers to a reduced level of consciousness and responsiveness. This is used for mild to moderately uncomfortable procedures like endoscopies for example. Although there has been much effort made to draw firm distinctions between "conscious sedation", "deep sedation", and "anesthetitized", they all exist on a continuum that could best be described by what the patient is or is not reponsive to. That is; responsive to voice, or to gentle stimulation, or only to moderate pain. At the far end of this spectrum, the patient is unresponsive to deep pain and would be considered anesthetized. An important corollary here is that any of the drugs usually used for sedation can, in sufficient doses, create any depth of sedation or anesthesia that you please. Conversely, many drugs that are used for general anesthesia can be used in small doses for sedation. (Peter M. Lucas, MD, Anesthesiologist)

Paralysis is associated with an increased risk of awareness under general anesthesia most likely for these two reasons. 1) A paralyzed patient cannot give the anesthesiologist one of the indicators of a lightening anesthetic; movement. And 2) A lesser reason is that paralysis may be more needed for patients who are not tolerating larger doses of anesthetic. (Peter M. Lucas, MD, Anesthesiologist)

Awareness is more common in trauma patients undergoing general anesthesia for this reason. The drugs used for general anesthesia depress the cardiovascular system. This means that patients who have lost blood (as well as certain other groups of patients) will often have a dangerous decrease in blood pressure when a "full" dose of anesthetic is used. When this happens, the anesthesiologist makes the decision that a risk of awareness is preferable to a risk of organ failure and/or death and therefore reduces the anesthetic. Of course, efforts are made to restore blood volume all the while. But the emergency nature of the surgery often requires that surgery and anesthesia begin before blood volume can be restored. (Peter M. Lucas, MD, Anesthesiologist)

And any coment on BIS monitors and others?

The BIS monitor is controversial. "BIS" is a term for the Bispectral Index which is a proprietary device made and marketed by the company Aspect. It is a 3 or 4 lead EEG (Electroencephalogram) placed on the forehead that is processed via a small machine and gives a number between 0-100 based on that EEG. 100 is fully awake and 0 is no brain activity. The company claims that a number between 40-60 indicates adequate anesthesia to prevent awareness and overdose. The company has not revealed how they process this number but it is presumed to be some form of pattern matching based on controlls. It has been shown to be effective, but the downsides are notable. The monitor is highly subject to electrical interference and muscle movement such that is has been shown to show adequate anesthesia in awake, but paralyzed volunteers. It clearly has the potential to prevent awareness but it has been hypothesized that it may also increase the risk in others. For example, imagine your Anesthesiologist is trying to raise a BIS value from 20 to 50, by lightening the anesthetic. This could, especially with the limitations noted above, result in a patient being lightened to a level of awareness when, if the Anesthesiologist had not used it at all, he or she would never have lighted the anesthetic otherwise. The main source of controversy, though, lies with the marketing of the device. This BIS monitor is marketed not so much to the Anesthesiologist who might use it, but to the general public by sponsoring frequent stories in the media about the horrors of awareness and making sure your Anesthesiologist is using the BIS monitor. These scare stories always seem to occur during the annual American Society of Anesthesiologists conference. Hmmm... It has also not been shown to be cost-effective to use. (Anesthesiologist,MD)

[edit] Spelling

I note that there has been some disagreement about the spelling of "an(a)esthetist", ending up with both terms being used in different parts of the article. I have changed them all to the American spelling, for two reasons:

1) The title is "Anesthesia awareness" not "Anaesthesia awareness"

2) The Manual of Style states: "If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." We may disagree about who the first significant contributor was, but certainly (IMO) the majority of the article used the American spelling.

All the best.Mmoneypenny 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! I have contributed significant sections of this article (over 50% of the entire text as it stands), and Wikified it considerably. I use British spellings, but I leave American spellings alone because I respect those who use them. I expect that same respect in return. Preacherdoc 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From my talk pages, User:Mmoneypenny wrote: "Thanks for your message about the above. I don't know if you saw my comment on the anesthetic awareness talk page, regarding the reasoning behind the changes. They were: a) The article is called anesthetic awareness. b) The first major contributions used "anesthesia" and, finally, before I changed the spelling, there were 39 spellings of anesthetist/anesthesiologist/anesthetic as opposed to 31 spellings of anaesthetist/anaesthetic.

From the manual of style:

Articles should use the same dialect throughout...

If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used...

IMO the article is confusing switching (between anaesthetist and anesthetist) and I am following the manual of style guidelines by: a)using the same spelling throughout and b)the one used by the first major contributor (and changing the spelling to the one used most commonly)

I am therefore reverting your changes in the interest of consistency but am more than happy to bring this to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Finally, I too am British and prefer anaesthetic/foetus/encyclopaedia (or even anǣsthetic?) and am doing this entirely out of a wish to be consistent. I am also doing my best not to be a dick, so am more than happy to have a discussion.

PS. Can we hold any further discussion on the anesthesia awareness talk page? All the best.Mmoneypenny 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"

I still don't agree, but life is too short to argue this any further.

I don't think it is confusing to see both "anaesthesia" and "anesthesia" in the same article. I think any reader could easily understand both. It is certainly untidy, but no more than that. Preacherdoc 10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)