Bilotta, Federico

Background: The perioperative management of chronic aspirin therapy in patients undergoing elective brain surgery is challenging due to the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Although aspirin discontinuation reduces the bleeding risk, it can increase thrombotic complications, particularly in patients at high risk of cardiovascular complications. This Delphi study aimed to develop consensus-based guidelines to address these clinical challenges. Methods: A 2-round Delphi survey was conducted among an international panel of 42 experienced anesthesiologists and neurosurgeons. Participants assessed the risks and benefits of perioperative aspirin management, including bleeding risk, thrombotic risk, timing of cessation and resumption, and the utility of platelet function testing. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement in round 2. Results: Round 1 highlighted significant variability in practice patterns. In round 2, consensus was reached on several key areas. Most experts (84%) agreed that continuing aspirin increases perioperative bleeding risk in high-risk procedures, with 87% recommending discontinuing aspirin 5 to 7 days before surgery. Nearly all experts (97%) supported continuing low-dose aspirin in high-thrombotic-risk patients. Conversely, for low-thrombotic-risk patients, only 65% agreed on aspirin continuation, reflecting an ongoing debate. No consensus was reached regarding routine platelet function testing. Conclusions: This Delphi study provides experience-based recommendations for managing chronic aspirin therapy in neurosurgical patients. The panel strongly supports aspirin continuation in high-thrombotic-risk patients, with cessation 5 to 7 days before high-bleeding-risk surgeries. Individualized management is advised for low-bleeding-risk procedures and low-thrombotic-risk patients. Future research should further clarify aspirin management in these groups and explore the role of platelet function testing in neurosurgical settings.

Background: During awake craniotomy, securing the patient’s airway might be necessary electively or emergently. The objective of this study was to compare the feasibility of airway management using a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and 4 alternative airway management techniques in an awake craniotomy simulation. Methods: After completing a questionnaire, 9 anesthesia providers attempted airway management in a cadaver positioned to simulate awake craniotomy conditions. Following the simulation, participants rated and ranked the devices in their order of preference. Results: Only 3 approaches resulted in the successful securement of an airway device for 100% of participants: LMA (median; interquartile range time to secure the airway 6 s, 5 to 10 s), fiberoptic bronchoscopy through an LMA (41 s; 23 to 51 s), and video laryngoscopy (49 s; 43 to 127 s). In contrast, the oral and nasal fiberoptic approaches demonstrated only 44.4% (154.5 s; 134.25 to 182 s) and 55.6% (75 s; 50 to 117 s) success rates, respectively. The LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure the airway (P=0.001). After the simulation, 100% of participants reported that an LMA would be their first choice for emergency airway management, followed by fiberoptic intubation through the LMA (7 of 9 participants) if the LMA failed to properly seat. Conclusions: We demonstrated that an LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure an airway in a laterally positioned cadaver with 3-pin skull fixation. Fiberoptic and video laryngoscope airway equipment should be readily available during awake craniotomy procedures, and an attempt to visualize the vocal cords through the LMA should be attempted before removing it for alternative techniques.

AbstractSedation is an essential therapeutic strategy in the care of neurocritical patients. Intravenous sedative agents are the most widely used, with promising alternatives (dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and volatile agents) to propofol and midazolam arising. Studies designed to evaluate superiority and avoid biases are required. A neurological awakening test is safe in most patients. Potential risks and benefits of limiting deep sedation and daily interruption of sedation in these patients remain unclear. The aim of this review was to report recent clinical evidence on sedation in this subgroup of patients, focusing on its effects on clinical prognosis.