×
Home
Current Archive Submission Guidelines
News Contact
Research paper

Anesthesiological risk in obstructive sleep apnea patients

By
Zoran Stamenković ,
Zoran Stamenković

Klinički centar Niš , Niš , Serbia

Lidija Ristić
Lidija Ristić

Klinički centar Niš , Niš , Serbia

Abstract

Introduction. When receiving anesthesia, patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to experience perioperative difficulties than those without this diagnosis. Aim. The aims of the paper were to highlight the correlation between OSA and increased risk of perioperative complications and present possible complications and pathophysiological mechanisms that may condition them in the perioperative environment; to review available preoperative screening methods of OSA and treatment planning strategies that should be considered as part of the perioperative care of these patients. Methodology. Standard databases were searched to identify qualified studies that included adult surgical patients without, suspected or diagnosed OSA. Results. Anesthesia method selection, airway management, and patient monitoring are all part of the customized care plan that must be used for each patient who is at risk for or has been diagnosed with OSA. Conclusion. The rising prevalence and heterogeneity of OSA, as well as the lack of solid risk predictors and well-documented evidence-based studies on the effectiveness of perioperative interventions, pose a challenge for future research in order to implement an appropriate strategy for perioperative care of OSA patients and prevent life-threatening consequences.

References

1.
Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, Chung SA, Vairavanathan S, Islam S, et al. Validation of the Berlin Questionnaire and American Society of Anesthesiologists Checklist as Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Surgical Patients. Anesthesiology. 2008;108(5):822–30.

Citation

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.