Back to Journals » Local and Regional Anesthesia » Volume 12

A clearer view on postoperative cognitive dysfunction? [Letter]

Authors van der Veen GJ , Slagt C 

Received 17 January 2019

Accepted for publication 24 January 2019

Published 12 March 2019 Volume 2019:12 Pages 27—28

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S201896

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Editor who approved publication: Dr Stefan Wirz



Gijsbert J van der Veen, Cornelis Slagt

Department of Anaesthesia, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands


Fathy et al1 rightfully emphasize the importance of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) as it is associated with longer length of in-hospital stay and an increased mortality in the first year after surgery.2,3 However, in contrast to the conclusion made by Fathy et al, it is not anesthesia and surgery that are risk factors for the development of POCD.4 Baseline patient characteristics (education level, age, frailty) and in-hospital delirium are major contributors for the development of POCD.2–4 Subsequently there were no differences found in the incidence of POCD between regional vs general anesthesia.5 Although Fathy et al target a very vulnerable patient group with respect to risk factors of developing POCD, it is very unlikely, in relation to the aforementioned, that there will be a difference in incidence between two local anesthetics. Fathy et al confirm this in their own study;1 there is a similar (nonsignificant) incidence of POCD in patients receiving lidocaine and in patients receiving bupivacaine during cataract surgery. So, the challenge in the prevention of POCD is not in the anesthetic technique or drug, but in the identification and treatment of modifiable risk factors and postoperative delirium.


View the original paper by Fathy and colleagues

Dear editor

Fathy et al1 rightfully emphasize the importance of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) as it is associated with longer length of in-hospital stay and an increased mortality in the first year after surgery.2,3 However, in contrast to the conclusion made by Fathy et al, it is not anesthesia and surgery that are risk factors for the development of POCD.4 Baseline patient characteristics (education level, age, frailty) and in-hospital delirium are major contributors for the development of POCD.24 Subsequently there were no differences found in the incidence of POCD between regional vs general anesthesia.5 Although Fathy et al target a very vulnerable patient group with respect to risk factors of developing POCD, it is very unlikely, in relation to the aforementioned, that there will be a difference in incidence between two local anesthetics. Fathy et al confirm this in their own study;1 there is a similar (nonsignificant) incidence of POCD in patients receiving lidocaine and in patients receiving bupivacaine during cataract surgery. So, the challenge in the prevention of POCD is not in the anesthetic technique or drug, but in the identification and treatment of modifiable risk factors and postoperative delirium.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.

References

1.

Fathy W, Hussein M, Khalil H. Effect of local anesthesia (with lidocaine vs bupivacaine) on cognitive function in patients undergoing elective cataract surgery. Local Reg Anesth. 2019;12:1–6.

2.

O’ Brien H, Mohan H, Hare CO, Reynolds JV, Kenny RA. Mind over matter? The hidden epidemic of cognitive dysfunction in the older surgical patient. Ann Surg. 2017;265(4):677–691.

3.

Monk TG, Weldon BC, Garvan CW, et al. Predictors of cognitive dysfunction after major noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2008;108(1):18–30.

4.

Hughes CG, Patel MB, Jackson JC, et al. Surgery and anesthesia exposure is not a risk factor for cognitive impairment after major noncardiac surgery and critical illness. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1126–1133.

5.

Berger M, Schenning KJ, Brown CH, et al. Best practices for postoperative brain health: recommendations from the Fifth International Perioperative Neurotoxicity Working Group. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(6):1406–1413.

Dove Medical Press encourages responsible, free and frank academic debate. The content of the Local and Regional Anesthesia ‘letters to the editor’ section does not necessarily represent the views of Dove Medical Press, its officers, agents, employees, related entities or the Local and Regional Anesthesia editors. While all reasonable steps have been taken to confirm the content of each letter, Dove Medical Press accepts no liability in respect of the content of any letter, nor is it responsible for the content and accuracy of any letter to the editor.

Creative Commons License © 2019 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.