Preclinical data suggest that general anaesthetics affect brain development. There is mixed evidence from cohort studies that young children exposed to anaesthesia can have an increased risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in infancy has any effect on neurodevelopmental outcome. Here we report the secondary outcome of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age in the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) trial. In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial, we recruited infants younger than 60 weeks postmenstrual age, born at greater than 26 weeks' gestation, and who had inguinal herniorrhaphy, from 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either awake-regional anaesthesia or sevoflurane-based general anaesthesia. Web-based randomisation was done in blocks of two or four and stratified by site and gestational age at birth. Infants were excluded if they had existing risk factors for neurological injury. The primary outcome of the trial will be the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (WPPSI-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient score at age 5 years. The secondary outcome, reported here, is the composite cognitive score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III, assessed at 2 years. The analysis was as per protocol adjusted for gestational age at birth. A difference in means of five points (1/3 SD) was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 363 infants were randomly assigned to receive awake-regional anaesthesia and 359 to general anaesthesia. Outcome data were available for 238 children in the awake-regional group and 294 in the general anaesthesia group. In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (mean [SD]) was 98.6 (14.2) in the awake-regional group and 98.2 (14.7) in the general anaesthesia group. There was equivalence in mean between groups (awake-regional minus general anaesthesia 0.169, 95% CI -2.30 to 2.64). The median duration of anaesthesia in the general anaesthesia group was 54 min. For this secondary outcome, we found no evidence that just less than 1 h of sevoflurane anaesthesia in infancy increases the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age compared with awake-regional anaesthesia. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research UK, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Heath, Fonds NutsOhra, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN).

In laboratory animals, exposure to most general anaesthetics leads to neurotoxicity manifested by neuronal cell death and abnormal behaviour and cognition. Some large human cohort studies have shown an association between general anaesthesia at a young age and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits, but these studies are prone to bias. Others have found no evidence for an association. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in early infancy affects neurodevelopmental outcomes. In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, we recruited infants of less than 60 weeks' postmenstrual age who were born at more than 26 weeks' gestation and were undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy, without previous exposure to general anaesthesia or risk factors for neurological injury. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a web-based randomisation service to receive either awake-regional anaesthetic or sevoflurane-based general anaesthetic. Anaesthetists were aware of group allocation, but individuals administering the neurodevelopmental assessments were not. Parents were informed of their infants group allocation upon request, but were told to mask this information from assessors. The primary outcome measure was full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, third edition (WPPSI-III), at 5 years of age. The primary analysis was done on a per-protocol basis, adjusted for gestational age at birth and country, with multiple imputation used to account for missing data. An intention-to-treat analysis was also done. A difference in means of 5 points was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This completed trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 4023 infants were screened and 722 were randomly allocated: 363 (50%) to the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 359 (50%) to the general anaesthesia group. There were 74 protocol violations in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and two in the general anaesthesia group. Primary outcome data for the per-protocol analysis were obtained from 205 children in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 242 in the general anaesthesia group. The median duration of general anaesthesia was 54 min (IQR 41-70). The mean FSIQ score was 99·08 (SD 18·35) in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 98·97 (19·66) in the general anaesthesia group, with a difference in means (awake-regional anaesthesia minus general anaesthesia) of 0·23 (95% CI -2·59 to 3·06), providing strong evidence of equivalence. The results of the intention-to-treat analysis were similar to those of the per-protocol analysis. Slightly less than 1 h of general anaesthesia in early infancy does not alter neurodevelopmental outcome at age 5 years compared with awake-regional anaesthesia in a predominantly male study population. US National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Thrasher Research Fund, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research (UK), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Health, Fonds NutsOhra, UK Clinical Research Network, Perth Children's Hospital Foundation, the Stan Perron Charitable Trust, and the Callahan Estate.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the safety of anesthetic agents in children has been questioned after the discovery that immature animals exposed to anesthesia display apoptotic neurodegeneration and long-term cognitive deficiencies. We examined the association between exposure to anesthesia in children under age 3 and outcomes in language, cognitive function, motor skills, and behavior at age 10.METHODS: We performed an analysis of the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study, which includes 2868 children born from 1989 to 1992. Of 2608 children assessed, 321 were exposed to anesthesia before age 3, and 2287 were unexposed.RESULTS: On average, exposed children had lower scores than their unexposed peers in receptive and expressive language (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Receptive [CELF-R] and Expressive [CELF-E]) and cognition (Colored Progressive Matrices [CPM]). After adjustment for demographic characteristics, exposure to anesthesia was associated with increased risk of disability in language (CELF-R: adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20–2.93, CELF-E: aRR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12–2.64), and cognition (CPM: aRR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13–2.53). An increased aRR for disability in language and cognition persisted even with a single exposure to anesthesia (CELF-R aRR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.40–4.17, and CPM aRR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.04–2.88).CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the association between anesthesia and neuropsychological outcome may be confined to specific domains. Children in our cohort exposed to anesthesia before age 3 had a higher relative risk of language and abstract reasoning deficits at age 10 than unexposed children.

Summary: The COVID‐19 pandemic marks an extraordinary global public health crisis unseen in the last century, with its rapid spread worldwide and associated mortality burden. The longevity of the crisis and disruption to normality is unknown. With COVID‐19 set to be a chronic health crisis, clinicians will be required to maintain a state of high alert for an extended period. The support received before and during an incident is likely to influence whether clinicians experience psychological growth or injury. An abundance of information is emerging on disease epidemiology, pathogenesis and infection control prevention. However, literature on interventions for supporting the psychological well‐being of healthcare workers during disease outbreaks is limited. This article summarises the available management strategies to increase resilience in healthcare workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond. It focuses on self‐care and organisational justice. It highlights various individual as well as organisational strategies. With the success of slowing disease spread in many countries to date, and reduced work‐load due to limitations on elective surgery in many institutions, there is more time and opportunity to be pro‐active in implementing measures to mitigate or minimise potential adverse psychological effects and improve, restore and preserve the well‐being of the workforce now and for years to come. The purpose of this review is to review available literature on strategies for minimising the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on clinicians and to identify pro‐active holistic approaches which may be beneficial for healthcare workers both for the current crisis and into the future.