Dr. Alyssa Burgart is a board certified anesthesiologist, specializing in pediatric anesthesia. She has special interest in abdominal transplantation, PANS/PANDAS, SMA, regional anesthesia, and trauma. Dr. Burgart is committed to finding the most successful way for each child to interact with the anesthesia team, in order to create an overall positive experience.
Dr. Burgart has a joint appointment in the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, serves as the Co-Chair of the LPCH Ethics Committee and as a member of the SHC Ethics Committee. Her interests include research on the practice of medicine, organ transplantation, end-of-life care, high cost medications, ethics education, and ethics consultation.
- Pediatric Anesthesia
- Anesthesia for Liver Transplant
Clinical Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Co-Chair, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Ethics Committee (2016 - Present)
Member, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Ethics Committee (2015 - Present)
Member, Stanford Hospital and Clinics Ethics Committee (2015 - Present)
Board Certification: Pediatric Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology (2016)
Board Certification, Pediatric Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology (2016)
Board Certification: Anesthesia, American Board of Anesthesiology (2015)
Fellowship:Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (2015) CA
Residency:Loyola University Medical Center (2014) IL
Internship:Loyola University Medical Center (2011) IL
MA, Loyola University Chicago, Bioethics and Health Policy (2010)
Medical Education:Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine (2010) IL
BA, University of Judaism, Bioethics (2003)
- Compassionate deactivation of ventricular assist devices in children: A survey of pediatric ventricular assist device clinicians' perspectives and practices PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION 2019; 23 (3)
Compassionate deactivation of ventricular assist devices in children: A survey of pediatric ventricular assist device clinicians' perspectives and practices.
OBJECTIVES: This study's objective was to investigate compassionate ventricular assist device deactivation (VADdeact) in children from the perspective of the pediatric heart failure provider.BACKGROUND: Pediatric VAD use is a standard therapy for advanced heart failure. Serious adverse events may affect relative benefit of continued support, leading to consideration of VADdeact. Perspectives and practices regarding VADdeact have been studied in adults but not in children.METHODS: A web-based anonymous survey of clinicians for pediatric VAD patients (<18years) was sent to list-serves for the ISHLT Pediatric Council, the International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians Pediatric Taskforce, and the Pediatric Cardiac Intensivist Society.RESULTS: A total of 106 respondents met inclusion criteria of caring for pediatric VAD patients. Annual VAD volume per clinician ranged from <4 (33%) to >9 (20%). Seventy percent of respondents had performed VADdeact of a child. Response varied to VADdeact requests by parent or patient and was influenced by professional degree and region of practice. Except for the scenario of intractable suffering, no consensus on VADdeact appropriateness was reported. Age of child thought capable of making informed requests for VADdeact varied by subspecialty. The majority of respondents (62%) do not feel fully informed of relevant legal issues; 84% reported that professional society supported guidelines for VADdeact in children had utility.CONCLUSION: There is limited consensus regarding indications for VADdeact in children reported by pediatric VAD provider survey respondents. Knowledge gaps related to legal issues are evident; therefore, professional guidelines and educational resources related to pediatric VADdeact are needed.
View details for PubMedID 30734422
- Physician Sexual Assault: The Moral Imperative for Gender Equity in Medicine AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS 2019; 19 (1): 4–6
Ethical Challenges Confronted When Providing Nusinersen Treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.
2018; 172 (2): 188–92
The US Food and Drug Administration's December 2016 approval of nusinersen for the treatment of patients with all subtypes of spinal muscular atrophy ushered in a new era for patients with spinal muscular atrophy, their families, and all those involved in their care. The extreme cost of the medication and the complicated logistical requirements for administering nusinersen via lumbar puncture have created practical challenges that raise important ethical considerations. We discuss 6 challenges faced at the institutional level in the United States: cost, limited evidence, informed consent, treatment allocation, fair distribution of responsibilities, and transparency with stakeholders. These challenges must be understood to ensure that patients with spinal muscular atrophy benefit from treatment, are protected from harm, and are treated fairly.
View details for PubMedID 29228163
Managing Expectations: Delivering the Worst News in the Best Way?
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB
2018; 18 (1): 1–2
View details for PubMedID 29313792
Ethical Controversy About Hysterectomy for a Minor.
One of the most complicated ethical issues that arises in children's hospitals today is the issue of whether it is ever permissible to perform a procedure for a minor that will result in permanent sterilization. In most cases, the answer is no. The availability of good, safe, long-acting contraception allows surgical options to be postponed when the primary goal of such surgical options is to prevent pregnancy. But what if a minor has congenital urogenital anomalies or other medical conditions for which the best treatment is a hysterectomy? In those cases, the primary goal of therapy is not to prevent pregnancy. Instead, sterility is an unfortunate side effect of a medically indicated treatment. Should that side effect preclude the provision of a therapy that is otherwise medically appropriate? We present a case that raises these issues, and asked experts in law, bioethics, community advocacy, and gynecology to respond. They discuss whether the best option is to proceed with the surgery or to cautiously delay making a decision to give the teenager more time to carefully consider all of the options.
View details for DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-3992
View details for PubMedID 28562274
Fairness and Transparency in an Expanded Access Program: Allocation of the Only Treatment for SMA1.
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB
2017; 17 (10): 71–73
View details for PubMedID 29020542
- Moral Distress in Clinical Ethics: Expanding the Concept AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS 2016; 16 (12): 1-1
Randomized n-of-1 Trials: Quality Improvement, Research, or Both?
2016; 138 (2)
The regulatory demarcations between clinical research and quality improvement (QI) are ambiguous and controversial. Some projects that were undertaken as a form of QI were deemed by regulatory agencies to be research and thus to require institutional review board approval. In the era of personalized medicine, some physicians may ask some patients to participate in n-of-1 trials in an effort to personalize and optimize each patient's medical treatment. Should such activities be considered research, QI, or just excellent personalized medicine? Experts in research, research regulation, and bioethics analyze these issues.
View details for DOI 10.1542/peds.2016-1103
View details for PubMedID 27385811