Neuroendocrine,epigenetic, and intergenerational effects of general anesthetics

The progress of modern medicine would be impossible without the use of general anesthetics (GAs). Despite advancements in refining anesthesia approaches, the effects of GAs are not fully reversible upon GA withdrawal. Neurocognitive deficiencies attributed to GA exposure may persist in neonates or endure for weeks to years in the elderly. Human studies on the mechanisms of the long-term adverse effects of GAs are needed to improve the safety of general anesthesia but they are hampered not only by ethical limitations specific to human research, but also by a lack of specific biological markers that can be used in human studies to safely and objectively study such effects. The latter can primarily be attributed to an insufficient understanding of the full range of the biological effects induced by GAs and the molecular mechanisms mediating such effects even in rodents, which are far more extensively studied than any other species. Our most recent experimental findings in rodents suggest that GAs may adversely affect many more people than is currently anticipated. Specifically, we have shown that anesthesia with the commonly used GA sevoflurane induces in exposed animals not only neuroendocrine abnormalities (somatic effects), but also epigenetic reprogramming of germ cells (germ cell effects). The latter may pass the neurobehavioral effects of parental sevoflurane exposure to the offspring, who may be affected even at levels of anesthesia that are not harmful to the exposed parents. The large number of patients who require general anesthesia, the even larger number of their future unexposed offspring whose health may be affected, and a growing number of neurodevelopmental disorders of unknown etiology underscore the translational importance of investigating the intergenerational effects of GAs. In this mini review, we discuss emerging experimental findings on neuroendocrine, epigenetic, and intergenerational effects of GAs.     

Keeping Secrets or Educating Others: A Dyadic Analysis of Group Entitativity’s Influence on Spouses’ Label Management Connected to AATD

In 1963, Goffman argued that forming a group based on shared stigma may provide benefits. However, there is no empirical research on whether perception that a separate, unique, coherent group exists (i.e., group entitativity) influences coping, such as educating others or secrecy, for the stigmatized individual or his or her spouse. Further, little is known about how spouses influence each other in terms of promoting the education of others about a stigmatizing condition, especially when it comes to the role of believing that stigma-based groups, to which they may both belong, exist. This study provides a step toward bridging this gap in the research by applying the label management model in efforts to understand coping for couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). This study included 50 married couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). We found that group entitativity related to those with AATD counterbalanced the influence of genetic stigma on spouses’ intentions to keep the diagnosis secret or to educate others about it. Intrapersonal and interpersonal influences appeared among spouses. Attention is needed on the power of creating groups for stigmatized persons and their relatives. Indeed, people live within a dynamic world of group entities, and multiple social identities including spousal and familial. While attention has been paid to the diffusion of stigmas to loved ones, less has been paid to the uplift of group entities for them.     

Symptoms During or Shortly After Isolated Carpal Tunnel Release and Problems Within 24?hours After Surgery

This study used the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS) database to measure the incidence of and risk factors for symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center and problems within 24 h after isolated carpal tunnel release (CTR). The NSAS contained records on 400,000 adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with CTR in 2006, based on ICD-9 codes. The type of anesthesia used and factors associated with symptoms and problems were sought in bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses. The mean duration of the procedure was 16 ± 8.8 min. Only 5 % were performed under local anesthesia without sedation, 45 % with IV sedation, 28 % regional anesthesia, and 19 % general anesthesia. Symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center or a problem within 24 h after discharge were recorded in 10 % of patients, all of them minor and transient, including difficulties with pain and its treatment. The strongest risk factors were male sex, age of 45 years and older, and participation of an anesthesiologist. Local anesthesia and regional anesthesia were associated with more perioperative symptoms and postoperative problems. Most CTR are performed with some sedation in the United States. CTR is a safe procedure: one in 10 patients will experience a minor issue in the perioperative or immediate postoperative period.     

Antimicrobial activity of selected synbiotics targeted for the elderly against pathogenic Escherichia coli strains

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of two synbiotic combinations, Lactobacillus fermentum with short-chain fructooligosaccharides (FOS-LF) and Bifidobacterium longum with isomaltooligosaccharides (IMO-BL), against enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 and enteropathogenic E. coli O86. Antimicrobial activity was determined (1) by co-culturing the synbiotics and pathogens in batch cultures, and (2) with the three-stage continuous culture system (gut model), inoculated with faecal slurry from an elderly donor. In the co-culture experiments, IMO-BL was significantly inhibitory to both E. coli strains, while FOS-LF was slightly inhibitory or not inhibitory. Factors other than acid production appeared to play a role in the inhibition. In the gut models, both synbiotics effectively inhibited E. coli O157 in the first vessel, but not in vessels 2 and 3. E. coli O86 was not significantly inhibited.