British journal of anaesthesia
-
Mechanisms of anaesthetic actions on memory have largely focused on easily definable aspects of episodic memory, with emphasis on particular drug interactions on specific memory processes. However, the memory landscape of the perioperative experience includes many facets that lie outside these conceptualisations. These include patient recall of preoperative conversations, patient beliefs regarding allergies and unusual/uncommon anaesthetic events, memories of awareness, and particularly vivid dreams during anaesthesia. ⋯ Belief systems are separate but closely interacting processes with autobiographical memory. The interaction of a constantly evolving set of memories with belief systems can explain phenomena such as illusions, distortions, and (re)constructions of factitious events. How anaesthetics and our patient interactions influence these behaviours, and vice versa, will be important questions to explore and define with future research.
-
Experiences during anaesthetic-induced unresponsiveness have previously been investigated by interviews after recovery. To explore whether experiences occur during drug administration, we interviewed participants during target-controlled infusion (TCI) of dexmedetomidine or propofol and after recovery. ⋯ NCT01889004.
-
The therapeutic potential of cardiac μ-opioid receptors in ischaemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury during opioid-modulating diseases, such as heart failure, is unknown. We aimed to explore the changes of cardiac μ-opioid receptor expression during heart failure, and its role in opioid-induced cardioprotection. ⋯ Cardiac μ-opioid receptors were substantially up-regulated during heart failure, which increased DAMGO-induced cardioprotection against I/R injury.
-
In clinical practice, analgesic drug doses applied during general anaesthesia are considered sufficient when clinical responses (e.g. movement, blood pressure and heart rate elevations) are suppressed during noxious stimulation. We investigated whether absent clinical responses are indicative of suppressed spinal and brain responsiveness to noxious stimulation in anaesthetised subjects. ⋯ Nociceptive activation persists during deep general anaesthesia despite abolished clinical responses. Absent clinical responses are therefore not indicative of absent nociception-specific activation. Thus, commonly accepted clinical responses might be inadequate surrogate markers to assess anti-nociception during general anaesthesia. Further research is required to investigate whether persistent nociception causes adverse effects on patient outcome.