Volatile Sedation Research Articles

Volatile Sedation in Neurointensive Care Patients After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Effects on Delayed Cerebral Ischemia, Cerebral Vasospasm, and Functional Outcome

Volatile anesthetics have shown neuroprotective effects in preclinical studies, but clinical data on their use after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are limited. This study aimed to analyze whether the use of volatile anesthetics for neurocritical care sedation affects the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), cerebral vasospasm (CVS), DCI-related infarction or functional outcome. Data were retrospectively collected for ventilated aSAH patients (2016-2022), who received sedation for at least 180 hours. For comparative analysis patients were assigned to a control and a study group according to the sedation used (intravenous vs. volatile sedation). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DCI, CVS, DCI-related infarction, and functional outcome. 99 patients with a median age of 58 years (IQR 52-65 years) were included. 47 patients (47%) received intravenous sedation, while 52 patients (53%) received (additional) volatile sedation with isoflurane (n=30, 58%) or sevoflurane (n=22, 42%) for a median duration of 169 hours (range 5-298 hours). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the occurrence of DCI, angiographic CVS, DCI-related infarction, or functional outcome. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the use of volatile anesthetics had no impact on the incidence of DCI-related infarction or the patients' functional outcome. Volatile sedation in aSAH patients is not associated with the incidence of DCI, CVS, DCI-related infarction or functional outcome. Although we could not demonstrate neuroprotective effects of volatile anesthetics, our results suggest that volatile sedation after aSAH has no negative effect on patient's outcome.

Sedaconda ACD-S for Sedation with Volatile Anaesthetics in Intensive Care: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance.

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive highly complex care and often require sedation as part of their management. ICU sedation has traditionally been delivered using intravenous (IV) agents due to the impractical use of anaesthetic machines in this setting, which are used to deliver volatile sedation. Sedaconda anaesthetic conserving device (ACD)-S (previously known as AnaConDa-S) is a device which allows for the delivery of volatile sedation via the majority of mechanical ventilators by being inserted in the breathing circuit where the heat and moisture exchanger is normally placed. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, considered the potential benefits of using Sedaconda ACD-S compared to standard IV sedation in ICU patients. Here we describe the evidence evaluation undertaken by NICE on this technology, supported by CEDAR. CEDAR considered the evidence present in 21 publications that compared the clinical outcomes of patients receiving Sedaconda ACD-S-delivered sedation and IV sedation, and critiqued the economic model provided by the manufacturer. Clinical expert input during the evaluation process was used extensively to ensure that the relevant clinical evidence was captured and that the economic model was suitable for the UK setting. Due to the uncertainty of the evidence, sensitivity analysis was carried out on the key economic inputs to ensure the reliability of the results. Economic modelling has shown that Sedaconda ACD-S-delivered isoflurane sedation is cost saving on a 30-day horizon compared to IV sedation by £3833.76 per adult patient and by £2837.41 per paediatric patient. Clinical evidence indicated that Sedaconda ACD-S-delivered isoflurane sedation is associated with faster patient wake-up times than standard of care. Consequently, NICE recommended Sedaconda ACD-S as an option for delivering sedation in the ICU setting, but noted that further research should inform whether Sedaconda ACD-S-delivered sedation is of benefit to any particular subgroup of patients.

Early and late effects of volatile sedation with sevoflurane on respiratory mechanics of critically ill COPD patients

BackgroundThe objective was to compare sevoflurane, a volatile sedation agent with potential bronchodilatory properties, with propofol on respiratory mechanics in critically ill patients with COPD exacerbation.MethodsProspective study in an ICU enrolling critically ill intubated patients with severe COPD exacerbation and comparing propofol and sevoflurane after 1:1 randomisation. Respiratory system mechanics (airway resistance, PEEPi, trapped volume, ventilatory ratio and respiratory system compliance), gas exchange, vitals, safety and outcome were measured at inclusion and then until H48. Total airway resistance change from baseline to H48 in both sevoflurane and propofol groups was the main endpoint.ResultsSixteen patients were enrolled and were sedated for 126 h(61–228) in the propofol group and 207 h(171–216) in the sevoflurane group. At baseline, airway resistance was 21.6cmH2O/l/s(19.8–21.6) in the propofol group and 20.4cmH2O/l/s(18.6–26.4) in the sevoflurane group, (p = 0.73); trapped volume was 260 ml(176–290) in the propofol group and 73 ml(35–126) in the sevoflurane group, p = 0.02. Intrinsic PEEP was 1.5cmH2O(1–3) in both groups after external PEEP optimization. There was neither early (H4) or late (H48) significant difference in airway resistance and respiratory mechanics parameters between the two groups.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients intubated with COPD exacerbation, there was no significant difference in respiratory mechanics between sevoflurane and propofol from inclusion to H4 and H48.

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial

BackgroundOptimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required.MethodsWe conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring.ResultsWe observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36.ConclusionsUsing volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population.Trial registration: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Early sevoflurane sedation in severe COVID-19-related lung injury patients. A pilot randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThis study aimed to assess a potential organ protective effect of volatile sedation in a scenario of severe inflammation with an early cytokine storm (in particular IL-6 elevation) in patients suffering from COVID-19-related lung injury with invasive mechanical ventilation and sedation.MethodsThis is a small-scale pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial from four tertiary hospitals in Switzerland, conducted between April 2020 and May 2021. 60 patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to severe COVID-19-related lung injury were included and randomized to 48-hour sedation with sevoflurane vs. continuous intravenous sedation (= control) within 24 h after intubation. The primary composite outcome was determined as mortality or persistent organ dysfunction (POD), defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy at day 28. Secondary outcomes were the length of ICU and hospital stay, adverse events, routine laboratory parameters (creatinine, urea), and plasma inflammatory mediators.Results28 patients were randomized to sevoflurane, 32 to the control arm. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed no difference in the primary endpoint with 11 (39%) sevoflurane and 13 (41%) control patients (p = 0.916) reaching the primary outcome. Five patients died within 28 days in each group (16% vs. 18%, p = 0.817). Of the 28-day survivors, 6 (26%) and 8 (30%) presented with POD (p = 0.781). There was a significant difference regarding the need for vasopressors (1 (4%) patient in the sevoflurane arm, 7 (26%) in the control one (p = 0.028)). Length of ICU stay, hospital stay, and registered adverse events within 28 days were comparable, except for acute kidney injury (AKI), with 11 (39%) sevoflurane vs. 2 (6%) control patients (p = 0.001). The blood levels of IL-6 in the first few days after the onset of the lung injury were less distinctly elevated than expected.ConclusionsNo evident benefits were observed with short sevoflurane sedation on mortality and POD. Unexpectedly low blood levels of IL-6 might indicate a moderate injury with therefore limited improvement options of sevoflurane. Acute renal issues suggest caution in using sevoflurane for sedation in COVID-19.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04355962) on 2020/04/21.

Prospective Observational Study of Volatile Sedation with Sevoflurane After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device.

Volatile sedation is still used with caution in patients with acute brain injury because of safety concerns. We analyzed the effects of sevoflurane sedation on systemic and cerebral parameters measured by multimodal neuromonitoring in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) with normal baseline intracranial pressure (ICP). In this prospective observational study, we analyzed a 12-h period before and after the switch from intravenous to volatile sedation with sevoflurane using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device with a target Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of - 5 to - 4. ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), brain tissue oxygenation (PBrO2), metabolic values of cerebral microdialysis, systemic cardiopulmonary parameters, and the administered drugs before and after the sedation switch were analyzed. We included 19 patients with a median age of 61years (range 46-78years), 74% of whom presented with World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grade 4 or 5 aSAH. We observed no significant changes in the mean ICP (9.3 ± 4.2 vs. 9.7 ± 4.2mm Hg), PBrO2 (31.0 ± 13.2 vs. 32.2 ± 12.4mm Hg), cerebral lactate (5.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.0 ± 1.9mmol/L), pyruvate (136.6 ± 55.9 vs. 134.1 ± 53.6µmol/L), and lactate/pyruvate ratio (37.4 ± 8.7 vs. 39.8 ± 9.2) after the sedation switch to sevoflurane. We found a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (88.6 ± 7.6 vs. 86.3 ± 5.8mm Hg) and CPP (78.8 ± 8.5 vs. 76.6 ± 6.6mm Hg) after the initiation of sevoflurane, but the decrease was still within the physiological range requiring no additional hemodynamic support. Sevoflurane appears to be a feasible alternative to intravenous sedation in patients with aSAH without intracranial hypertension, as our study did not show negative effects on ICP, cerebral oxygenation, or brain metabolism. Nevertheless, the risk of a decrease of MAP leading to a consecutive CPP decrease should be considered.

Balanced volatile sedation with isoflurane in critically ill patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage - a retrospective observational study.

In patients with severe aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) deep sedation is often used early in the course of the disease in order to control brain edema formation and thus intracranial hypertension. However, some patients do not reach an adequate sedation depth despite high doses of common intravenous sedatives. Balanced sedation protocols incorporating low-dose volatile isoflurane administration might improve insufficient sedation depth in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed ICU patients with severe aneurysmal SAH who received isoflurane in addition to intravenous anesthetics in order to improve insufficient sedation depth. Routinely recorded data from neuromonitoring, laboratory and hemodynamic parameters were compared before and up to 6 days after initiation of isoflurane. Sedation depth measured using the bispectral index improved in thirty-six SAH patients (-15.16; p = 0.005) who received additional isoflurane for a mean period of 9.73 ± 7.56 days. Initiation of isoflurane sedation caused a decline in mean arterial pressure (-4.67 mmHg; p = 0.014) and cerebral perfusion pressure (-4.21 mmHg; p = 0.013) which had to be balanced by increased doses of vasopressors. Patients required increased minute ventilation in order to adjust for the increase in PaCO2 (+2.90 mmHg; p < 0.001). We did not detect significant increases in mean intracranial pressure. However, isoflurane therapy had to be terminated prematurely in 25% of the patients after a median of 30 h due to episodes of intracranial hypertension or refractory hypercapnia. A balanced sedation protocol including isoflurane is feasible for SAH patients experiencing inadequately shallow sedation. However, therapy should be restricted to patients without impaired lung function, hemodynamic instability and impending intracranial hypertension.

548 Volatile Sedation in the Burn Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Abstract Introduction Achieving optimal sedation and analgesia in patients with major burn injuries can be challenging. Reliance on benzodiazepines results in longer durations of mechanical ventilation, delirium and withdrawal. Recent evidence and local experience in our critical care unit has supported the application of volatile agents such as isoflurane for sedation. A local audit determined that 70% of mechanically ventilated patients in our burn center are managed on 3 or more continuous sedative infusions. The aim of this initiative was to reduce the number of continuous sedative infusions to maintain target sedation range (SAS 2-4) by 25% in the 48 hour period following initiation of isoflurane. Methods A multifaceted education approach was applied to engage all bedside staff, including burn surgeons, respiratory therapists and nurses. Training occurred though self-directed modules, in-person learning and just-in-time training upon new patient initiation. Data from the 18 month period since implementation were collected retrospectively via manual chart review. Results Since implementation in March 2021, 18 patients were sedated using isoflurane in our burn intensive care unit (ICU). Within 48 hours of isoflurane initiation, 50% (9/18) of patients had a decrease in the number of sedative infusions and 56% (10/18) obtained an optimal level of sedation using isoflurane and hydromorphone alone. Conclusions Volatile agents provide a safe and reliable method of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with major burn injuries. Despite limitations related to specialized equipment and training, the introduction of this strategy has been well received, with positive feedback relating to both ease of implementation and titration. Applicability of Research to Practice Patients with major burn injuries require multiple painful surgeries and dressing changes. Volatile sedation has been shown to reduce the number of sedative infusions, specifically, our reliance on benzodiazepines.

Volatile Sedation With Isoflurane in Neurocritical Care Patients After Poor-grade Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Volatile sedation after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) promises several advantages, but there are still concerns regarding intracranial hypertension due to vasodilatory effects. We prospectively analyzed cerebral parameters during the switch from intravenous to volatile sedation with isoflurane in patients with poor-grade (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grade 4-5) aSAH. Eleven patients were included in this prospective observational study. Between day 3 and 5 after admission, intravenous sedation was switched to isoflurane using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device (Sedana Medical, Danderyd, Sweden). Intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), brain tissue oxygenation (PBrO2), cerebral mean flow velocities (MFVs; transcranial Doppler ultrasound) and regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2, near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring), as well as cardiopulmonary parameters were assessed before and after the sedation switch (-12 to+12 hours). Additionally, perfusion computed tomography data during intravenous and volatile sedation were analyzed retrospectively for changes in cerebral blood flow. There were no significant changes in mean ICP, CPP, and PBrO2 after the sedation switch to isoflurane. Mean rSO2 showed a non-significant trend towards higher values, and mean MFV in the middle cerebral arteries increased significantly after the initiation of volatile sedation. Isoflurane sedation resulted in a significantly increased norepinephrine administration. Despite an increase in mean inspiratory pressure, we observed a significant increase in mean partial arterial pressure of carbon dioxide. Isoflurane sedation does not compromise ICP or cerebral oxygenation in poor-grade aSAH patients, but the significant depression of CPP could limit the use of volatiles in case of hemodynamic instability or high vasopressor demand.

The advantages of inhalational sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device versus intravenous sedatives in an intensive care unit setting: A systematic review.

Sedation is fundamental to the management of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Its indications in the ICU are vast, including the facilitating of mechanical ventilation, permitting invasive procedures, and managing anxiety and agitation. Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in ICU patients using dedicated devices/systems. Its use may reduce adverse events and improve ICU outcomes compared to conventional intravenous (IV) sedation in the ICU. This review examined the effectiveness of inhalational sedation using the anesthetic conserving device (ACD) compared to standard IV sedation for adult patients in ICU and highlights the technical aspects of its functioning. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Sage Journals databases using the terms "anesthetic conserving device," "Anaconda," "sedation" and "intensive care unit" in randomized clinical studies that were performed between 2012 and 2022 and compared volatile sedation using an ACD with IV sedation in terms of time to extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Nine trials were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time compared to IV sedation (midazolam or propofol). Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. More clinical trials that assess additional clinical outcomes on a large scale are needed.

Halogenated anesthetics vs intravenous hypnotics for short and long term sedation in the intensive care unit: A meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo comprehensively assess peer-reviewed studies using volatile (VA) or intravenous (i/v) anesthetics for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs), with the hypothesis that the type of sedation may have an impact on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials. SettingICUs. ParticipantsCritically ill and postoperative patients. InterventionsNone. Measurements and main resultsStudies comparing VA versus i/v anesthetics used in the ICU settings were independently systematically searched. Finally, 15 studies (1520 patients of predominantly surgical profile needed VA sedation for less than 96h) were included. VA had no impact on all-cause mortality (very low quality of evidence, Odds Ratio=0.82 [0.60–1.12], p=0.20). However, VA were associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.03) and increase in ventilator-free days (p<0.001). VA also reduced postoperative levels of cardiac troponin (24h), time to extubation (p<0.001) and awakening (p=0.04). ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, volatile sedation vs propofol caused the increase in ventilator-free days, the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation and the troponin release in medical or surgical ICU patients, while in surgical ICU patients the time to awakening was shortened.

Evaluation of volatile sedation in the postoperative intensive care of patients recovering from heart valve surgery: protocol for a randomised, controlled, monocentre trial

IntroductionPatients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in...

Negative drift of sedation depth in critically ill patients receiving constant minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) physicians have extended the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) to deliver and monitor long-term volatile sedation in critically ill patients. There is limited evidence of MAC’s reliability in controlling sedation depth in this setting. We hypothesized that sedation depth, measured by the electroencephalography (EEG)-derived Narcotrend-Index (burst-suppression N_Index 0—awake N_Index 100), might drift downward over time despite constant MAC values.MethodsThis prospective single-centre randomized clinical study was conducted at a University Hospital Surgical Intensive Care Unit and included consecutive, postoperative ICU patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive uninterrupted inhalational sedation with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. The end-expiratory concentration of the anaesthetics and the EEG-derived index were measured continuously in time-stamped pairs. Sedation depth was also monitored using Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (RASS). The paired t-test and linear models (bootstrapped or multilevel) have been employed to analyze MAC, N_Index and RASS across the three groups.ResultsThirty patients were recruited (female/male: 10/20, age 64 ± 11, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II 30 ± 10). In the first 24 h, 21.208 pairs of data points (N_Index and MAC) were recorded. The median MAC of 0.58 ± 0.06 remained stable over the sedation time in all three groups. The t-test indicated in the isoflurane and sevoflurane groups a significant drop in RASS and EEG-derived N_Index in the first versus last two sedation hours. We applied a multilevel linear model on the entire longitudinal data, nested per patient, which produced the formula N_Index = 43 − 0.7·h (R2 = 0.76), showing a strong negative correlation between sedation’s duration and the N_Index. Bootstrapped linear models applied for each sedation group produced: N_Index of 43–0.9, 45–0.8, and 43–0.4·h for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, respectively. The regression coefficient for desflurane was almost half of those for isoflurane and sevoflurane, indicating a less pronounced time-effect in this group.ConclusionsMaintaining constant MAC does not guarantee stable sedation depth. Thus, the patients necessitate frequent clinical assessments or, when unfeasible, continuous EEG monitoring. The differences across different volatile anaesthetics regarding their time-dependent negative drift requires further exploration.Trial registration: NCT03860129.

Volatile Sedation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients on Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Ultraprotective Ventilation.

Retrospective monocentric study. Adult ICU, ASST Monza, Italy. Adult patients who underwent volatile sedation with isoflurane during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between 2009 and 2019. Isoflurane was delivered via the AnaConDa system. The sedation level, hemodynamics, and laboratory tests were compared between the volatile sedation phase and the IV sedation phases before and after the isoflurane sedation period. About 74 patients (50 yr [43-56 yr]) were included. Median duration of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was 22 days (14-51 d). Volatile sedation started on day 3 (2-6) of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and its median duration was 7 days (4-13 d), ranging from 1 to 38 days. A total of 970 venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation days were analyzed. During the volatile phase, the sedation level was slightly deeper (bispectral index 39 ± 6) compared with the IV phase before and after isoflurane (42 ± 8 and 43 ± 9, respectively, p < 0.001). Requirements of fentanyl and remifentanyl were reduced during the volatile phase. Minor differences in hemodynamics were observed during volatile sedation: mean arterial pressure was lower (75 ± 13 vs 79 ± 14 and 80 ± 15; p < 0.001), whereas cardiac output was higher (8.5 ± 1.9 vs 7.9 ± 1.8 and 8.0 ± 1.8; p = 0.003). Aspartate aminotransferase levels were lower during the volatile sedation phases (p < 0.001), whereas alanine aminotransferase, triglycerides, and creatine phosphokinase were more altered during the IV sedation phase before isoflurane (p < 0.001). Volatile sedation represents an alternative to IV agents to achieve long-term deep sedation in critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation undergoing ultraprotective ventilation.

Use of Inhaled Volatile Anesthetics for Longer Term Critical Care Sedation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: Assess feasibility, barriers to recruitment, and safety of volatile-based sedation in longer term sedation patients in North American ICUs with limited or no experience with volatile sedation. Design: Open-label, pilot randomized clinical trial performed between October 2013 and September 2018. Setting: Four Canadian ICUs across two academic tertiary and quaternary hospitals. Patients: Sixty adults anticipated needing sedation and invasive ventilation beyond 48 hours with tidal volumes greater than 350 mL, expected 6-month mortality risk less than 50%, no evidence of high intracranial pressure, or drug contraindications (malignant hyperthermia, allergy). Interventions: 2:1 randomization to inhaled volatile sedation using isoflurane or standard midazolam and/or propofol IV sedation. Measurement and Main Results: Primary outcome of safety and feasibility was assessed by staff satisfaction scores using a five-point Likert scale and serum fluoride measurements. Secondary clinical outcomes included time to extubation, quality of sedation, opioid use, cardiorespiratory parameters, vasopressor and antipsychotic drug use, and 3-month cognitive outcome measured using telephone interview for cognitive status. From 2,210 screened patients, 308 met eligibility criteria secondary to many not requiring sedation, extubation planned within 48 hours, high risk of death, or low tidal ventilation. Of 308 patients, 60 were randomized to isoflurane (n = 41) or IV (n = 19) sedation secondary to lack of substitute decision-maker or physician consent. Duration of inhaled isoflurane and IV sedation were median of 114 and 88 hours, respectively. Nine isoflurane patients crossed into the IV arm secondary to mainly hypercarbia from low tidal ventilation. Nursing and respiratory therapy staff satisfaction scores were quantitatively similar between both sedation approaches. Serum fluoride levels rose with duration of isoflurane sedation but were not associated with altered kidney function. There were no significant differences in secondary clinical outcomes. Conclusions: We showed adequate preliminary safety and acceptability of inhaled volatile anesthetics for long-term sedation.

Volatile Isoflurane in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients-A Case Series and Systematic Review.

Objectives:The ongoing coronavirus pandemic is challenging, especially in severely affected patients who require intubation and sedation. Although the potential benefits of sedation with volatile anesthetics in coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently being discussed, the use of isoflurane in patients with coronavirus disease 2019–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome has not yet been reported.Design:We performed a retrospective analysis of critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation.Setting:The study was conducted with patients admitted between April 4 and May 15, 2020 to our ICU.Patients:We included five patients who were previously diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.Intervention:Even with high doses of several IV sedatives, the targeted level of sedation could not be achieved. Therefore, the sedation regimen was switched to inhalational isoflurane. Clinical data were recorded using a patient data management system. We recorded demographical data, laboratory results, ventilation variables, sedative dosages, sedation level, prone positioning, duration of volatile sedation and outcomes.Measurements & Main Results:Mean age (four men, one women) was 53.0 (± 12.7) years. The mean duration of isoflurane sedation was 103.2 (± 66.2) hours. Our data demonstrate a substantial improvement in the oxygenation ratio when using isoflurane sedation. Deep sedation as assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale was rapidly and closely controlled in all patients, and the subsequent discontinuation of IV sedation was possible within the first 30 minutes. No adverse events were detected.Conclusions:Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of isoflurane sedation in five patients suffering from severe coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Volatile isoflurane was able to achieve the required deep sedation and reduced the need for IV sedation.

Inhalation sedation for postoperative patients in the intensive care unit: initial sevoflurane concentration and comparison of opioid use with propofol sedation.

BackgroundAlthough the use of volatile sedatives in the intensive care unit (ICU) is increasing in Europe, it remains infrequent in Asia. Therefore, there are no clinical guidelines available. This study investigates the proper initial concentration of sevoflurane, a volatile sedative that induces a Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) score of –2 to –3, in patients who underwent head and neck surgery with tracheostomy. We also compared the amount of postoperative opioid consumption between volatile and intravenous (IV) sedation.MethodsWe planned a prospective study to determine the proper initial sevoflurane concentration and a retrospective analysis to compare postoperative opioid consumption between volatile sedation and propofol sedation. Patients scheduled for head and neck surgery with tracheostomy and subsequent postoperative sedation in the ICU were enrolled.ResultsIn this prospective study, the effective dose 50 (ED50) of initial end-tidal sevoflurane concentration was 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.60%), while the ED 95 was 0.69% (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75%) based on isotonic regression methods. In this retrospective study, remifentanil consumption during postoperative sedation was significantly lower in the sevoflurane group (2.52±1.00 µg/kg/hr, P=0.001) than it was in the IV propofol group (3.66±1.30 µg/kg/hr).ConclusionsWe determined the proper initial end-tidal concentration setting of sevoflurane for patients with tracheostomy who underwent head and neck surgery. Postoperative sedation with sevoflurane appears to be a valid and safe alternative to IV sedation with propofol.

Isoflurane Sedation in Patients Undergoing Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment for Cardiogenic Shock-An Observational Propensity-Matched Study.

Objectives:The feasibility and hemodynamic effects of isoflurane sedation in cardiogenic shock in the presence of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment are currently unknown.Design:Retrospective single-center study.Setting:Cardiac ICU of Munich university hospital.Patients/Subjects:Cardiogenic shock patients with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment under sedation with volatile isoflurane between November 2018 and October 2019 have been enrolled in this study and were matched by propensity score in a 1:1 ratio with IV sedated patients treated between January 2013 and November 2018 from the cardiogenic shock registry of the university hospital of Munich.Measurements and Main Results:Isoflurane sedation was used in 32 patients with cardiogenic shock and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment. The mean age of conventionally sedated patients was 58.4 ± 13.8 years and 56.3 ± 11.5 years for patients with isoflurane sedation (p = 0.51). Administration of isoflurane was associated with lower IV sedative drug use during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment (86% vs 32%; p = 0.01). Mean systolic arterial pressure was similar (94.3 ± 12.6 vs 92.9 ± 10.5 mm Hg; p = 0.65), but mean heart rate was significantly higher in the conventional sedation group, when compared with the isoflurane group (85.2 ± 20.5 vs 74.7 ± 15.0 beats/min; p = 0.02). Catecholamine doses, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation blood and gas flow, ventilation time (304 ± 143 vs 398 ± 272 hr; p = 0.16), bleeding complications bleeding academic research consortium 3a or higher (59.3% vs 65.3%; p = 0.76), and 30-day mortality (59.2% vs 63.4%, p = 0.80) were similar in both groups. The overall sedation costs per patient were significantly lower in the conventional group, when compared with the isoflurane group (537 ± 624 vs 1280 ± 837 €; p < 0.001).Conclusions:Volatile sedation with isoflurane is feasible—albeit at higher costs—in patients with cardiogenic shock and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment and was not associated with higher catecholamine dosage or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation flow rate compared with IV sedation.

Does volatile sedation with sevoflurane allow spontaneous breathing during prolonged prone positioning in intubated ARDS patients? A retrospective observational feasibility trial

BackgroundLung-protective ventilation and prolonged prone positioning (PP) are presented as essential in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The optimal respirator mode, however, remains controversial. Pressure-supported spontaneous breathing (PS) during ARDS provides several advantages, but is difficult to achieve during PP because of respiratory depression as a side effect of sedative drugs. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PS during PP in ARDS patients sedated with inhaled sevoflurane.ResultsOverall, we have observed 4339 h of prone positioning in 62 patients who had a median of four prone episodes during treatment. Within 3948 h (91%), patients were successfully brought into a pressure-supported spontaneous breathing mode. The median duration of each prone episode was 17 h (IQR 3). Median duration of pressure-supported spontaneous breathing per episode was 16 h (IQR 5). Just one self-extubation occurred during 276 episodes of PP.Conclusions and implicationsPressure-supported spontaneous breathing during prolonged prone positioning in intubated ARDS patients with or without ECMO can be achieved during volatile sedation with sevoflurane. This finding may provide a basis upon which to question the latest dogma in ARDS treatment. Our concept must be further investigated and compared to controlled ventilation with regard to driving pressure, lung-protective parameters, muscle weakness and mortality before it can be routinely applied.

Volatile sedation in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Volatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may reduce the number of adverse events and improve patient outcomes compared with intravenous (IV) sedation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of volatile and IV sedation in adult ICU patients. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Web of Science databases for all randomized trials comparing volatile sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) with IV sedation in terms of awakening and extubation times, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and pharmacologic end-organ effects. Thirteen trials with a total of 1027 patients were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time [mean difference (MD), -80.0 minutes; 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), -134.5 to -25.6; P = .004] and extubation time (MD, -196.0 minutes; 95% CIs, -305.2 to -86.8; P < .001) compared with IV sedation (midazolam or propofol). No differences in the lengths of ICU and hospital stay were noted between the 2 groups. In the analysis of cardiac effects of sedation from 5 studies, patients who received volatile sedation showed lower serum troponin levels 6 hours after ICU admission than patients who received IV sedation (P < .05). The effect size of troponin was largest between 12 and 24 hours after ICU admission (MD, -0.27 μg/L; 95% CIs, -0.44 to -0.09; P = .003). Compared with IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times. Considering the difference in serum troponin levels between both arms, volatile anesthetics might have a myocardial protective effect after cardiac surgery even at a subanesthetic dose. Because the included studies used small sample sizes with high heterogeneity, further large, high-quality prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.