Correspondence  |   March 2019
In Reply
Author Notes
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   March 2019
In Reply
Anesthesiology 3 2019, Vol.130, 511-513. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002577
Anesthesiology 3 2019, Vol.130, 511-513. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002577
We thank our international colleagues for their interest in our study, “Inhalational versus Intravenous Induction of Anesthesia in Children with a High Risk of Perioperative Respiratory Adverse Events: A Randomized Controlled Trial,”1  and have summarized our responses as follows.
Nguyen et al. raised the question of complications in the postinduction period and the effect of the route of the induction on complications. It is important to note that our study was neither designed nor powered to address respiratory adverse events within individual anesthesia phases, and data should be interpreted with caution. As demonstrated in table 1, the inhalational group did have the majority of respiratory adverse events during the induction of anesthesia, highlighted by Nguyen et al. However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of respiratory adverse events during the other phases of anesthesia. Complications increased across the whole perioperative period (primary outcome measure), as reported in our study.1  While we cannot specifically comment on the impact on the method of anesthesia induction on complications within each anesthetic phase, we believe the significant reduction of complications within the induction phase and across the perioperative period warrants individual practitioners to give consideration to their clinical practice.