Brugada syndrome (BrS) is one of the most common causes of sudden death in young people. It usually presents with life-threatening arrhythmias in subjects without remarkable medical history. The need for surgical treatment may unmask BrS in otherwise asymptomatic patients. The best anaesthesiological treatment in such cases is matter of debate. We report a case of neurosurgical treatment of cerebello pontine angle (CPA) tumor in a BrS patient, performed under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with target controlled infusion (TCI) modalities, using midazolam plus remifentanil and rocuronium, without recordings of intraoperative ECG alterations in the intraoperative period and postoperative complications. 1. Introduction BrS is a rare dominant autosomal disease with incomplete penetrance, first described in 1992 by P. Brugada and J. Brugada [1]. More common in men than in women, it is typically diagnosed during the fourth decade of life, and it is caused by a genetic mutation affecting the ion channels of the cardiac conduction system. The typical clinical correlate is a coved ST segment elevation in the right precordial leads that can occur with or without an incomplete right bundle branch block. Owing to its phenotypic variability, clinical manifestations of BrS are protean, including syncope or spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias that can lead to a sudden death [2, 3], which all may be elicited in such peculiar situations (vagal tone increase, fever, and electrolytes disorder) or by peculiar drugs administration including some anaesthetics [4]. There is still no consense on which the golden standard should be in case of general anaesthesia in these cases, especially because of the low prevalence of BrS, the absence of large prospective study, and the different anaesthesiological needs according to different surgical specialties. Existing guidelines derives from theoretical model based on the pathophysiological mechanism of BrS and from case series regarding a small number of patients. As regards the use of intravenous anesthetics in patients with BrS, propofol, and midazolam wase successfully used in different procedures [5, 6]. Propofol is a short acting, intravenous hypnotic, that ensures fast onset and rapid recovery of anesthesia, reducing PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting). It represents the hypnotic of choice for TIVA/TCI use in neurosurgery, due to his low impact on CBF and the ability to mantain cerebral autoregulation, however, allowing a rapid recovery of the cognitive function at the end of the procedure. The recommendation to avoid
References
[1]
P. Brugada and J. Brugada, “Right bundle branch block, persistent ST segment elevation and sudden cardiac death: a distinct clinical and electrocardiographic syndrome. A multicenter report,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1391–1396, 1992.
[2]
H. Morita, D. P. Zipes, and J. Wu, “Brugada syndrome: insights of ST elevation, arrhythmogenicity, and risk stratification from experimental observations,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. S34–S43, 2009.
[3]
C. Antzelevitch, P. Brugada, M. Borggrefe et al., “Brugada syndrome: report of the second consensus conference,” Circulation, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 659–670, 2005.
[4]
P. Brugada, J. Brugada, and R. Brugada, “Arrhythmia induction by antiarrhythmic drugs,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 291–292, 2000.
[5]
P. G. Postema, C. Wolpert, A. S. Amin et al., “Drugs and Brugada syndrome patients: review of the literature, recommendations, and an up-to-date website (www.brugadadrugs.org),” Heart Rhythm, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1335–1341, 2009.
[6]
C. Staikou*, K. Chondrogiannis, and A. Mani, “Perioperative management of hereditary arrhythmogenic syndromes,” The British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 730–44, 2012.
[7]
I. Riezzo, F. Centini, M. Neri et al., “Brugada-like EKG pattern and myocardial effects in a chronic propofol abuser,” Clinical Toxicology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 358–363, 2009.
[8]
J. B. Weiner, E. V. Haddad, and S. R. Raj, “Recovery following propofol-associated brugada electrocardiogram,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. e39–e42, 2010.
[9]
B. Kloesel, M. J. Ackerman, J. Sprung, B. J. Narr, and T. N. Weingarten, “Anesthetic management of patients with Brugada syndrome: a case series and literature review,” Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 824–836, 2011.
[10]
D. J. Greenblatt, B. L. Ehrenberg, K. E. Culm et al., “Kinetics and EEG effects of midazolam during and after 1-minute, 1-hour, and 3-hour intravenous infusions,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 605–611, 2004.
[11]
I. S. Kass, B. Lei, S. Popp, and J. E. Cottrell, “Effects of midazolam on brain injury after transient focal cerebral ischemia in rats,” Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 131–139, 2009.
[12]
FragenRJ, “Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam given via continuous intravenous infusion in intensive care units,” Clinical Therapeutics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 405–419, 1997.
[13]
H. Vierti？-Oja, V. Maja, M. S？rkel？ et al., “Description of the Entropy algorithm as applied in the Datex-Ohmeda 5/5 entropy module,” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 154–161, 2004.
