Evidence Hub

Patterns of neuropsychological changes after general anaesthesia in young children: secondary analysis of the Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids study

Michael J. Zaccariello, R. D. Frank, Minji Lee, A. Kirsch, D. Schroeder, A. Hanson, Phillip J. Schulte, R. Wilder et al.

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2019

106 participants · 76 citations

Abstract

Background: We hypothesised that exposure to multiple, but not single, procedures requiring general anaesthesia before age 3 yr is associated with a specific pattern of deficits in processing speed and fine motor skills. Methods: A secondary analysis (using factor and cluster analyses) of data from the Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids study was conducted, in which unexposed, singly exposed, and multiply exposed children born in Olmsted County, MN, USA from 1994 to 2007 were sampled using a propensity‐guided approach and underwent neuropsychological testing at ages 8–12 or 15–20 yr. Results: In the factor analysis, the data were well fit to a five factor model. For subjects multiply (but not singly) exposed to anaesthesia, a factor reflecting motor skills, visual‐motor integration, and processing speed was significantly lower [standardised difference of –0.35 (95% confidence interval {CI} –0.57 to –0.13)] compared with unexposed subjects. No other factor was associated with exposure. Three groups were identified in the cluster analysis, with 106 subjects (10.6%) in Cluster A (lowest performance in most tests), 557 (55.9%) in Cluster B, and 334 (33.5%) in Cluster C (highest performance in most tests). The odds of multiply exposed children belonging to Cluster A was 2.83 (95% CI: 1.49–5.35; P=0.001) compared with belonging to Cluster B; there was no other significant association between exposure status and cluster membership. Conclusions: Multiple, but not single, exposures to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 106 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free