Repeated Anesthesia Exposure Could Hurt Young Brains, FDA Warns

The agency will require new warnings on medication labels

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Regulators in the US will require new warnings be added to the labels of certain anesthetic and sedation drugs, the Food and Drug Administration announced Wednesday, indicating that use of the drugs could possibly harm young children’s brains.

The warnings will apply to children under 3 and to pregnant women during their third trimester, and pertain to procedures that last longer than three hours or to repeated exposure to the drugs. A single short exposure to general anesthesia has not been found to have negative brain effects for children.

However, some research has found an association between greater exposure to the drugs before age 3 and problems with learning and behavior, including an increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The studies were observational and did not establish a causative effect between the drugs and the developmental issues.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Other studies have found no such connection. The FDA said the question needs to be studied further.

Animal studies have shown that lengthy or multiple experiences with anesthesia can lead to cell death and problems with the formation of connections among brain cells.

Eleven drugs will be required to add the warnings to their labels, though the exact language was not included in the FDA’s announcement.

FDA recommended that clinicians balance the possible risk of multiple exposures to anesthesia against what kind of procedure is required. It noted that anesthesia is required for many surgeries, including lifesaving ones, and that untreated pain can also hurt children’s nervous systems.

“We recognize that in many cases these exposures may be medically necessary and these new data regarding the potential harms must be carefully weighed against the risk of not performing a specific medical procedure,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on December 14, 2016

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.

More by STAT

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe