Propofol or midazolam for sedation and early extubation following cardiac surgery

BIS-guided sedation prevents the cough reaction of patients under general anaesthesia caused by extubation: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The multiple modes of SARS-CoV-2 transmission including airborne, droplet, contact and faecal–oral transmissions that cause coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contribute to a public threat to the lives of people worldwide. Heavy aerosol production by coughing and the big peak expiratory flow in patients with respiratory infections (especially SARS-CoV-2) during recovery from general anaesthesia are the highest risk factors for infection in healthcare workers. To perform sedation before extubation significantly reduced the incidence of coughing during recovery from general anaesthesia. However, there are few studies on endotracheal tube removal under BIS-guided sedation in postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). We speculated that the BIS-guided sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol would better prevent coughing caused by tracheal extubation and reducing peak expiratory flow.

Methods

Patients with general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to Group S (dexmedetomidine was infused in the operating room for 30 min, and the bispectral index (BIS) value was maintained 60–70 by infusion propofol at 0.5~1.5 μg/ml in the PACU until the endotracheal tubes were pulled out) and Group C (no dexmedetomidine and propofol treatment, replaced with the saline treatment). The incidence of coughing, agitation and active extubation, endotracheal tube tolerance and the peak expiratory flow at spontaneous breathing and at extubation were assessed.

Results

A total of 101 patients were randomly assigned to Group S (51 cases) and Group C (50 cases). The incidence of coughing, agitation and active extubation was significantly lower (1(51), 0(51) and 0(51), respectively) in Group S than (11(50), 8(50) and 5(50), respectively) in Group C (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01, respectively); the scores of cough were significantly reduced (1(1, 1)) in Group S than (1(1, 2)) in Group C (p < 0.01); and the endotracheal tube tolerance was significantly improved (0(0, 1)) in Group S than (1(1, 3)) in Group C (p < 0.001). The peak expiratory flow at spontaneous breathing and at extubation was significantly reduced (5(5, 7) and 6.5(6, 8), respectively) in Group S than (8(5, 10) and 21(9, 32)) in Group C (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

BIS-guided sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol significantly prevented coughing and reduced peak expiratory flow during recovery from general anaesthesia, which may play an important role in preventing medical staff from contracting COVID-19.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200058429 (registration date: 09-04-2022) “retrospectively registered”.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of propofol versus midazolam sedation in adult intensive care (ICU) patients

PURPOSE

Compare outcomes of adult patients admitted to ICU- length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation (MV), and time until extubation- according to the use of propofol versus midazolam.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases to retrieve RCTs that compared propofol and midazolam used as sedatives in adult ICU patients. We applied a random-effects, meta-analytic model in all calculations. We applied the Cochrane collaboration tool and GRADE. We separated patients into two groups: acute surgical patients (hospitalization up to 24 h) and critically-ill patients (hospitalization over 24 h and whose articles mostly mix surgical, medical and trauma patients).

RESULTS

Globally, propofol was associated with a reduced MV time of 4.46 h (MD: -4.46 [95% CI -7.51 to -1.42] p = 0.004, I2 = 63%, 6 studies) and extubation time of 7.95 h (MD: -7.95 [95% CI -9.86 to -6.03] p < 0.00001, I2 = 98%, 16 studies). Acute surgical patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced ICU stay of 5.07 h (MD: -5.07 [95% CI -8.68 to -1.45] p = 0.006, I2 = 41%, 5 studies), MV time of 4.28 h (MD: -4.28; [95% CI -4.62 to -3.94] p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, 3 studies), extubation time of 1.92 h (MD: -1.92; [95% CI -2.71 to -1.13] p = 0.00001, I2 = 89%, 9 studies). In critically-ill patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced extubation time of 32.68 h (MD: -32.68 [95% CI -48.37 to -16.98] p = 0.0001, I2 = 97%, 9 studies). GRADE was very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol compared to midazolam is associated with improved clinical outcomes in ICU, with reduced ICU stay MV time and extubation time in acute surgical patients and reduced extubation time in critically-ill patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Sedative drugs used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of different sedative drugs on all-cause mortality rate, duration of ICU stay, and risk of delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients are unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of individual sedative drugs and drug combinations in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for studies that assessed sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. A Bayesian random-effects model was used to combine the direct comparisons and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized, controlled trials were included, which consisted of 4491 patients who received one of seven sedative drugs or a combination of drugs. There were no significant differences regarding the all-cause mortality rate. Compared to propofol, inhalation anesthetics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.121; 95% credible interval [CrI] -7.58 to 7.62), alpha agonists (HR 2.2; 95% CrI 0.776 to 5.22), propofol with benzodiazepines (HR 0.306; 95% CrI -6.97 to 7.65), ketamine with benzodiazepines (HR 6.57; 95% CrI -6.05 to 19.1) and placebo (HR 2.4; 95% CrI -5.37 to 10.3), benzodiazepines (HR 3.62; 95% CrI 0.834 to 6.2) may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, propofol (HR 2.4; 95% CrI 0.304 to 21.1) and placebo (HR 6.12; 95% CrI 0.745 to 54.6), benzodiazepines (HR 2.59; 95% CrI 1.08 to 7.4) were associated with incremental risks of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Compared to propofol, benzodiazepines may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, benzodiazepines were associated with an increased risk of delirium.

Propofol or benzodiazepines for short- and long-term sedation in intensive care units? An economic evaluation based on meta-analytic results

Purpose

This evaluation compares propofol and benzodiazepine sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in order to identify the potential economic benefits from different payers' perspectives.

Methods

The patient-level simulation model incorporated efficacy estimates from a structured meta-analysis and ICU-related costs from Italy, Germany, France, UK, and the USA. Efficacy outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation duration, and weaning time. We calculated ICU costs from mechanical ventilation duration and ICU LOS based on national average ICU costs with and without mechanical ventilation. Three scenarios were investigated: 1) long-term sedation >24 hours based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 2) long-term sedation based on RCT plus non-RCT results; and 3) short-term sedation <24 hours based on RCT results. We tested the model's robustness for input uncertainties by deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Results

In the base case, mean savings with propofol versus benzodiazepines in long-term sedation ranged from €406 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 646 to 164) in Italy to 1,632 € (95% CI: 2,362 to 880) in the USA. Inclusion of non-RCT data corroborated these results. Savings in short-term sedation ranged from €148 (95% CI: 291 to 2) in Italy to €502 (95% CI: 936 to 57) in the USA. Parameters related to ICU and mechanical ventilation had a stronger influence in the DSA than drug-related parameters. In PSA, propofol reduced costs and ICU LOS compared to benzodiazepines in 94%-100% of simulations. The largest savings may be possible in the UK and the USA due to higher ICU costs.

Conclusion

Current ICU sedation guidelines recommend propofol rather than midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients. This evaluation endorses the recommendation as it may lead to better outcomes and savings for health care systems, especially in countries with higher ICU-related costs.

Effectiveness of new sedation and rehabilitation methods for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of new sedation management methods and cooperation between nurses and physical therapists on the duration of mechanical ventilation and hospitalization. [Subjects and Methods] Patients who had been treated at the study hospital 2 years before and after the implementation of the new methods were analyzed retrospectively and classified into a “control group” and an “intervention group”, respectively. Both groups were analyzed and subsequently compared regarding the effects of the new sedation and cooperative rehabilitation. [Results] A total of 70 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided evenly into the two groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in age, APACHE II score, or duration of stay in hospital. On the other hand, significant decreases were seen in the duration of sedation and intubation, mechanical ventilation, and stay in the emergency ward, as well as time until standing. In addition, after intervention, three patients undergoing ventilator treatment were able to be ambulated. [Conclusion] These results suggest that the new sedation and cooperative rehabilitation methods for critically ill patients were effective in the early stage of treatment and shortened the duration of stay in the ward.

Benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality.

METHODS

We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine's Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines' literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible.

RESULTS

We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68-2.55; I = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70-2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

A randomized, open-label study of the safety and tolerability of fospropofol for patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events.

RESULTS

Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

Surface electrostimulation of acupuncture points for sedation of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit--a pilot study

BACKGROUND

This is a pilot study to investigate the effects of electrostimulation of acupuncture points on sedation and the dose of sedatives in the Intensive Care Unit.

METHODS

Electrostimulation of acupuncture points was performed on 12 critically ill patients requiring sedation for mechanical ventilation. Electrostimulation was applied by point surface electrodes at LI4, ST36, HT7 and LR3 points for 20 minutes every hour for 12 hours using dense dispersed mode with a current frequency of 10-100 Hz and maximum intensity of 10 mA. All patients were sedated with propofol and alfentanil as required. The dose of propofol was reduced by 10mg/hour provided the patient remained sedated according to our guidelines. Sedation and analgesia scores, dose of sedative and analgesics drugs, respiratory rate, heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure and compliance with the ventilator were recorded before electrostimulation of acupuncture points, and hourly thereafter for 12 hours.

RESULTS

There was significant reduction in the median propofol consumption from 145 mg/hour (range 30-250) to 15 mg/hour (range 0-250) (P<0.05), without any significant change in sedation scores or analgesia scores. The haemodynamic and respiratory variables remained stable. All patients were compliant with the ventilator.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study showed significant reduction in the dose of propofol required for sedation in critically ill patients following surface electrostimulation of acupuncture points, without any adverse effects. A randomised controlled trial is warranted.

Economic evaluation of sustained sedation/analgesia in the intensive care unit

Lorazepam, midazolam, propofol and opioids are the primary agents that are used for sustained sedation and analgesia of critically ill patients. The choice of agent depends on safety profiles, expected outcomes, cost, patient characteristics and clinical experience. Few studies have comparatively evaluated the sedatives in terms of cost. Many factors, aside from drug costs, influence the total cost of sedation in the intensive care unit. This article reviews the cost parameters of intensive care unit sedation that are specific to the characteristics of commonly used sedatives and analgesics, evaluates economic studies and cost models, summarises alternative methods of sedation and analgesia, and provides practical recommendations for methods of cost containment, including daily sedation interruption, sedation monitoring and protocol implementation.

Fentanyl-induced hemodynamic changes after esophagectomy or cardiac surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to characterize the hemodynamic response to propofol vs propofol with fentanyl when used for sedation after esophagectomy or cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

University Hospital, Intensive Care Unit.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery and 26 patients undergoing esophagectomy were examined.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive propofol (0.5 mg/kg bolus over 10 minutes, followed by continuous infusion at 1 mg/kg per hour) with or without fentanyl (2.0 microg/kg per hour) to achieve sedation overnight while in the intensive care unit. Randomization was performed in a double-blind manner.

MEASUREMENT

Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was monitored throughout the treatment period, and sedation level was measured. Sedation level was targeted to achieve a Ramsay score of 4.

MAIN RESULTS

The number of patients experiencing a greater than 20% drop in baseline MAP was higher in cardiac patients receiving propofol alone (11 of 15 patients, 73%) than in cardiac patients receiving propofol with fentanyl (4 of 15 patients, 27%). Furthermore, the time of optimal sedation was lower in the cardiac patients who received propofol than in cardiac patients who received propofol with fentanyl group (propofol alone, 79%; propofol with fentanyl, 88%). In contrast, there was no difference in the number of esophagectomy patients experiencing a greater than 20% drop in baseline MAP or in the mean time of optimal sedation when comparing the 2 treatment regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol has a differential effect on hemodynamics and sedation when comparing patients after cardiac surgery and esophagectomy.

Combination of Intrathecal Morphine and Remifentanil Infusion for Fast-Track Anesthesia in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the combination of intrathecal morphine and remifentanil infusion with isoflurane in off-pump coronary artery surgery, with a focus on postoperative analgesia and fast-tracking.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded clinical study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-six patients who underwent elective off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil infusion alone (control group, n = 23) or remifentanil infusion plus 10 microg/kg of intrathecal morphine (ITM group, n = 23). Induction and maintenance anesthesia were the same in both groups. Maintenance therapy was remifentanil infusion (0.25-1 microg/kg/min) and 0.5% to 1.5% isoflurane, with adjustments according to hemodynamics. After extubation, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine (1-mg bolus and 5-minute lockout) was administered, and Wilson sedation scores, visual analog pain scores (scale, 0-100 mm) at rest and during coughing, and cumulative morphine consumption were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours. Examiners were unaware of patients' group identities. Anesthetic recovery parameters and opioid-related, spinal anesthesia-related, and cardiac complications were recorded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were no differences between the groups' intraoperative hemodynamic or anesthetic recovery findings. Pain scores and morphine consumption were significantly lower in the ITM group at all time points after extubation (p = 0.0001-0.05). Group frequencies of opioid-related and cardiac complications were similar. No patient had central neuroaxial hematoma or post-spinal tap headache.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of isoflurane anesthesia for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, ITM combined with remifentanil infusion provides better postoperative analgesia than does remifentanil infusion alone, and does not improve or negatively affect fast-tracking.

Pharmacoeconomic Modeling of Lorazepam, Midazolam, and Propofol for Continuous Sedation in Critically Ill Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the expected costs of short-, intermediate-, and long-term sedation (< 24, 24-72, and > 72 hrs, respectively) with propofol, lorazepam, and midazolam in an intensive care unit.

METHODS

Decision-analysis models were constructed for each sedative and each duration by using institutional costs associated with drug administration and adverse events (including personnel time). Costs were expressed in 2002 U.S. dollars. Adverse events were agitation, hypertriglyceridemia and/or pancreatitis, hypotension, nutritional changes, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and prolonged awakening and/or extubation. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to obtain durations of sedation, the incidence of outcomes, and cost estimates of outcomes. The ability to maintain specific levels of sedation was assumed equivalent among the sedatives. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the cost-driving variables, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted by using second-order Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

Weighted mean durations of sedation from 50 studies were 13.46 (short term), 45.27 (intermediate term), and 119.78 (long term) hours. Expected costs for sedation with lorazepam, midazolam, and propofol, respectively, were 497 dollars, 294 dollars, and 272 dollars short term; 932 dollars, 587 dollars, and 674 dollars intermediate term; and 1604 dollars, 1737 dollars, and 2033 dollars long term. Propofol was least costly in 86% of the short-term simulations, midazolam was least costly in 97.5% of the intermediate-term simulations, and lorazepam was least costly in 84% of the long-term simulations. The most important cost-driver for all sedatives was drug cost. Prolonged extubation after sedation was an important cost-driver for lorazepam and midazolam, especially as sedation was lengthened.

CONCLUSION

Propofol, midazolam, and lorazepam had the lowest expected costs for short-, intermediate-, and long-term sedation, respectively. Many factors aside from drug costs influenced the cost of sedation.

Cost comparisons of pharmacological strategies in open-heart surgery

Open-heart surgery (OHS) is performed to bypass occluded arteries, replace malfunctioning cardiac valves or correct congenital abnormalities. The average cost of OHS varies from $US25 057-$US79 795 (1997 values). The objective of this paper was to review economic studies of pharmacological strategies in open-heart surgery. Pharmacological strategies studied include the prevention of postoperative complications such as atrial fibrillation (AF), bleeding and infection. Modifications in anaesthetic technique have been attempted by using agents that promote early extubation. In addition, strategies for postoperative management of sedation, analgesia and AF and use of neuromuscular blockers have also been compared. The majority of studies in this area have been cost analyses with few cost-effectiveness studies performed. Prophylaxis against AF with amiodarone is associated with a reduction in AF and was cost-neutral compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, prevention of bleeding with antifibrinolytics reduces transfusion costs. In direct comparative studies, lysine analogues, due to lower drug acquisition costs, offset transfusion costs to a greater extent than aprotinin. However, safety concerns with the lysine analogues remain. Erythropoietin decreases transfusion requirements and is cost effective compared with no intervention when the cost of postoperative bacterial complications is included. First- and second-generation cephalosporins prevent postoperative infections. Based on drug acquisition cost, the first-generation agents are less expensive although when administration costs are included, both classes have similar costs. Modifications in anaesthetic technique with short-acting anaesthetic agents, results in higher drug costs although nursing and total hospital costs are typically reduced. For neuromuscular blockers, drug acquisition costs are lowest with pancuronium but administration costs and the cost of adverse events have not been included in existing analyses. Midazolam provides an equivalent level of postoperative sedation to propofol but the acquisition cost is lower. The combined use of propofol and midazolam warrants further investigation, as its use is associated with lower sedative agent costs compared with either agent alone. There is limited data on the economics of postoperative analgesia and the management of AF. As the majority of studies to date are partial cost analyses, additional studies that include length of stay and other hospitalisation data are warranted. In future, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies, which incorporate quality of life and the cost of adverse effects and other longer term costs, should be undertaken.

Intrathecal sufentanil-morphine shortens the duration of intubation and improves analgesia in fast-track cardiac surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of combined intrathecal morphine and sufentanil with low-dose iv sufentanil during propofol anesthesia for fast-track cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Twenty-four consecutive patients with normal cardiopulmonary function who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery were randomized to receive either a continuous iv infusion of sufentanil 0.9 to 1.8 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (13 patients), or a single lumbar intrathecal dose of sufentanil 50 micro g and morphine 500 micro g (11 patients). We prospectively studied perioperative analgesia, time to extubation and early postoperative maximal inspiratory capacity in the two groups. In the intensive care unit, the medical and nursing staff were blinded to the analgesic technique.

RESULTS

Intrathecal sufentanil morphine allowed a shorter duration of intubation (104 +/- 56.5 min vs 213 +/- 104 min; P = 0.01), reduced the need for postoperative analgesia with nicomorphine (equipotent to morphine) (0.7 +/- 0.4 mg x hr(-1) vs 1.2 +/- 0.4 mg x hr(-1); P = 0.008) and improved postoperative maximal inspiratory capacity (53.4 +/- 16.1 vs 38.4 +/- 12.5% of the norm; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In low-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or valve surgery, combined intrathecal sufentanil and morphine with a target-controlled infusion of propofol satisfies the goals of fast-track cardiac surgery.

A dose-ranging study of midazolam for postoperative sedation of patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dose range, efficacy, and safety of midazolam for induction of sedation of mechanically ventilated postoperative patients in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

Thirteen intensive care units in Japan.

PATIENTS

We included 98 patients undergoing general surgery who were ASA physical status I-III. The following inclusion criteria were applied to the patients after surgery: under mechanical ventilation, sedation level 2 or 3 on the Ramsay Sedation Scale, and any pain level but 4 on the Pybus and Torda Pain Scale.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Of the 98 patients initially enrolled in the study, 95 patients received one of the study medications: placebo (n = 24), 0.015 mg/kg midazolam (n = 21), 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (n = 26), or 0.06 mg/kg midazolam (n = 24). Level of sedation was assessed by using the Ramsay Sedation Scale before and 10 mins after medication. The proportions of patients with sedation level 4 or deeper after medication were 4.3%, 14.3%, 52.0%, and 90.9% in the placebo and the midazolam 0.015 mg/kg, 0.03 mg/kg, and 0.06 mg/kg groups, respectively. Safety was assessed by routine monitoring of body functions and monitoring for adverse events. Although midazolam dose-dependently reduced mean systolic arterial pressure, the changes in this variable were small; only one or two patients in each treatment group had decreases in systolic arterial pressure of >20%. No clear dose dependency was found for changes in other body functions measured in the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of patients who achieved a satisfactory level of sedation increased with an increasing dose of midazolam. Intravenous bolus injection of midazolam also dose-dependently reduced mean systolic arterial pressure. This study indicated that, balancing sedative efficacy and safety, from 0.03 to 0.06 mg/kg of midazolam provides relatively safe sedation in postoperative patients.

Oxygen consumption after hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass: the effect of continuing a propofol infusion postoperatively

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a fixed rate of infusion of propofol on total body oxygen consumption during the postoperative rewarming phase after cardiopulmonary bypass.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Cardiac intensive care unit, university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four male and female patients undergoing elective first-time coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Total body oxygen consumption was measured using a pulmonary artery catheter and thermodilution during postoperative rewarming. Twelve patients had propofol infused at 2 mg/kg/h for 4 hours or until rewarmed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Total body oxygen consumption was reduced in the propofol group compared with the control group. Oxygen consumption was a median of 30.0 mL/min/m(2) less in the patients receiving propofol (p = 0.01). One patient receiving propofol shivered compared with 4 in the control group (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Administration of propofol during postoperative rewarming reduces total body oxygen consumption and may reduce shivering.

Propofol or midazolam--which is best for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in intensive care units? A systematic review

Intensive care patients are commonly sedated to maintain comfort and to facilitate life saving therapy. Although sedation is ordered by medical staff, nurses are usually responsible for its administration and titration and thus the question of which drug regime should be chosen is an important practice issue for nurses (1,2). This paper is a report on a systematic review that was conducted to compare the effectiveness of two of the most common drugs used for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in Australian intensive care units (ICUs)--propofol and midazolam (3). All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared propofol with midazolam for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in ICUs were included in the study. The outcome measures evaluated were the quality of sedation achieved, the length of time from cessation of sedation till extubation, recovery time, duration of admission to the ICU and the incidence of haemodynamic complications. Meta-analysis was used to compare results of studies where subjects had the same characteristics and the outcome criteria were measured in the same manner. The review found that infusions of both midazolam and propofol appear to provide similar quality sedation, that extubation time and recovery time is shorter in patients sedated with propofol and that haemodynamic complications related to either drug regime are not usually clinically significant.

Analysis of pharmacoeconomics of sedation and analgesia

Intravenous sedation and analgesia are cornerstones of the pharmacologic management of the critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patient. No conclusive evidence exists to support any single optimal sedative or analgesic regimen in this heterogeneous population. The role of cost effectiveness in the process of selecting a regimen is explored with a review of the literature, followed by proposed cost-effectiveness models and recommendations for the clinical practitioner.

Using protocols to improve the outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients. Focus on weaning and sedation

The use of nonphysician-directed protocols and guidelines for the management of sedation and weaning has been shown to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation for patients with acute respiratory failure when compared with conventional physician-directed practices. Practitioners in ICUs frequently are needed to perform multiple tasks and to evaluate numerous elements of clinical information in the care of the critically ill. In this complex environment, protocols and guidelines are one strategy for ensuring that specific tasks are carried out in a timely manner. Simple-to-employ methods for facilitating changes and improvements in the care of hospitalized patients recently have been proposed. These methods emphasize the importance of developing a culture of cooperation within the ICU so protocols and guidelines can be implemented successfully. Such a culture should embrace changes in medical practices in the ICU if they are associated with improved clinical outcomes. The results of studies evaluating the use of protocols and guidelines have important implications for general critical care practices, because many ICUs do not have physicians who are constantly at the patient's bedside. The need for effective communication from the bedside caregiver (e.g., nurse, respiratory therapist, pharmacist, technician) to the physician, so that treatment orders can be changed appropriately, usually results in some delay in the implementation of treatment changes. Protocols are one method for potentially reducing those delays and ensuring that medical care is administered in a more standardized and efficient manner.

A lack of evidence of superiority of propofol versus midazolam for sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review

Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in the intensive care unit. The aim of this systematic review was to estimate the efficacy and harm of propofol versus midazolam in mechanically ventilated patients. A systematic search (Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, bibliographies), any language, up to June 1999 was performed for reports of randomized comparisons of propofol with midazolam. Data from 27 trials (1624 adults) were analyzed. The average duration of sedation varied between 4 and 339 h. In 10 trials, the duration of adequate sedation was longer with propofol (weighted mean difference 2.9 h; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-5.6 h). In 13 trials (mostly postoperative), sedation lasted 4 to 35 h; in 9 of those, average weaning time from mechanical ventilation with propofol was 0.8-4.3 h; with midazolam it was 1.5-7.2 h (weighted mean difference 2.2 h [95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7 h]). In 8 trials, sedation lasted 54 to 339 h; there was a lack of evidence for difference in weaning times. Arterial hypotension (relative risk 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5]; number-needed-to-treat, 12), and hypertriglyceridemia (relative risk 12.1 [95%CI, 2.9 to 49.7]; number-needed-to-treat, 6) occurred more often with propofol. The duration of adequate sedation time is longer with propofol compared with midazolam. In postoperative patients with sedation <36 h, weaning is faster with propofol.

IMPLICATIONS

The duration of adequate sedation time is longer with propofol compared with midazolam. In postoperative patients with sedation < 36 h, weaning is faster with propofol.

[The use of propofol does not increase the cost of the management of patients in heart surgery with extracorporeal circulation]

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of the cost of propofol used for fast-track in cardiac surgery and its impact on global cost of management for anaesthesia and intensive care.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study, prospective (1998) and retrospective (1994).

PATIENTS

Twenty patients operated for cardiac surgery in 1998 and scheduled for fast-track anaesthesia. Twenty patients in 1994 matched for different criteria to the patient of 1998.

METHODS

In 1998, all drugs, materials used and X-rays, biochemical assays performed were prospectively collected and their cost calculated. In 1994, similar calculations were done retrospectively. Comparison of duration of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization in intensive care and in the hospital were performed.

RESULTS

Cost of anaesthesia was similar in 1994 and 1998 (2,646 FF versus 2,294 FF). Global cost of management was significantly lower in 1998 in comparison to 1994 (5,439 FF versus 8,558 FF). Duration of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization in intensive care and in the hospital were shorter in 1998 than in 1994.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher cost of propofol for anaesthesia and postoperative sedation in comparison to midazolam, the global cost of management decreased significantly in relation to a one day decrease in hospitalization in the intensive care unit.

Fast-track cardiac anesthesia: use of remifentanil combined with intrathecal morphine as an alternative to sufentanil during desflurane anesthesia

The purpose of this cardiac fast-track study was to evaluate the use of remifentanil (R) combined with intrathecal (IT) morphine as an alternative to sufentanil (S) during desflurane anesthesia with respect to postoperative pain control. Prior to entering the operating room, patients in the R group (n = 20) received morphine, 8 microg/kg IT. Anesthesia was induced using a standardized anesthetic technique in all patients. In the R group, anesthesia was maintained with R, 0.1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) in combination with desflurane 3-10%. In the S group (n = 20), patients received S 0.3 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) and desflurane 3-10%. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to time from arrival in the intensive care unit to tracheal extubation (5.1 +/- 4.3 h vs 5.8 +/- 6.7 h for R and S groups, respectively). After extubation, patients in the R group had significantly lower visual analog pain scores, reduced patient-controlled analgesic requirements, and greater satisfaction with their perioperative pain management, compared with patients in the S group. We conclude that R combined with IT morphine provided superior pain control after cardiac surgery compared with a S-based general anesthetic technique.

IMPLICATIONS

As part of a cardiac fast-tracking program involving desflurane anesthesia, the use of intrathecal morphine in combination with a remifentanil infusion provided improved postoperative pain control, compared with IV sufentanil alone.

A prospective evaluation of empiric versus protocol-based sedation and analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare empiric and protocol-based therapies of sedation and analgesia in terms of pharmacologic cost, effects on mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and quality of sedation and analgesia.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

A 24-bed medical-surgical-neurologic ICU.

PATIENTS

Seventy-two patients evaluated during empiric therapy and 86 during protocol-based therapy.

INTERVENTION

Assessment of data collected for 4 months before and 5 months after an evidence-based sedation and analgesia protocol was implemented.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Protocol adherence rate was 83.7%. The hourly cost (Canadian dollars) of sedation was less with protocol-based therapy ($5.68 +/- 4.27 vs $7.69 +/- 5.29, p<0.01) likely due to increased lorazepam use. Pharmacologic cost savings may be negated since sedation duration tended to be longer (122.7 +/- 142.8 vs 88.0 +/- 94.8 hrs, p<0.1) and extubation may have been delayed (61.6 +/- 97.4 vs 39.1 +/- 54.7 hrs, p=0.13) with protocol use. Duration of ICU stay after sedation was discontinued was not significantly different before and after protocol implementation. With the protocol, however, the percentage of modified Ramsay sedation scores representing discomfort decreased from 22.4 to 11% (p<0.001) and the percentage at a score of 4 increased from 17.2% to 29.6% (p<0.01). The percentage of modified visual analog measurements representing pain decreased from 9.6 to 5.9% (p<0.05) with the protocol. When data were stratified according to duration of sedation, the benefits and delayed extubation associated with protocol-based therapy were limited to patients requiring long-term sedation.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with this protocol reduced drug costs and enhanced the quality of sedation and analgesia for patients requiring long-term sedation. Protocol-based therapy with lorazepam may have delayed extubation but did not delay ICU discharge.

Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation

OBJECTIVE

To compare a practice of protocol-directed sedation during mechanical ventilation implemented by nurses with traditional non-protocol-directed sedation administration.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Medical intensive care unit (19 beds) in an urban teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 321).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either protocol-directed sedation (n = 162) or non-protocol-directed sedation (n = 159).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 55.9 hrs (95% confidence interval, 41.0-90.0 hrs) for patients managed with protocol-directed sedation and 117.0 hrs (95% confidence interval, 96.0-155.6 hrs) for patients receiving non-protocol-directed sedation. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patients in the protocol-directed sedation group had statistically shorter durations of mechanical ventilation than patients in the non-protocol-directed sedation group (chi-square = 7.00, p = .008, log rank test; chi-square = 8.54, p = .004, Wilcoxon's test; chi-square = 9.18, p = .003, -2 log test). Lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (5.7+/-5.9 days vs. 7.5+/-6.5 days; p = .013) and hospital (14.0+/-17.3 days vs. 19.9+/-24.2 days; p < .001) were also significantly shorter among patients in the protocol-directed sedation group. Among the 132 patients (41.1%) receiving continuous intravenous sedation, those in the protocol-directed sedation group (n = 66) had a significantly shorter duration of continuous intravenous sedation than those in the non-protocol-directed sedation group (n = 66) (3.5+/-4.0 days vs. 5.6+/-6.4 days; p = .003). Patients in the protocol-directed sedation group also had a significantly lower tracheostomy rate compared with patients in the non-protocol-directed sedation group (10 of 162 patients [6.2%] vs. 21 of 159 patients [13.2%], p = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of protocol-directed sedation can reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and the need for tracheostomy among critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure.

Economic outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Emphasis on cost containment in coronary artery bypass surgery is becoming increasingly important in modern hospital management. The revival of interest in off-pump (beating heart) coronary artery bypass surgery may influence the economic outcome. This study examines these effects.

METHODS

Two hundred patients undergoing first-time coronary artery bypass surgery were prospectively randomized to either conventional cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest or off-pump surgery. Variable and fixed direct costs were obtained for each group during operative and postoperative care. The data were analyzed using parametric methods.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups with respect to pre- and intraoperative patient variables. Off-pump surgery was significantly less costly than conventional on-pump surgery with respect to operating materials, bed occupancy, and transfusion requirements (total mean cost per patient: on pump, $3,731.6+/-1,169.7 vs off-pump, $2,615.13+/-953.6; p < 0.001). Morbidity was significantly higher in the on-pump group, which was reflected in an increased cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-pump revascularization offers a safe, cost-effective alternative to conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest.

[Minimally invasive cardiac surgery: surgical techniques and anesthetic problems]

OBJECTIVE

To review current data on minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Search through the Medline data base of French or English articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

The articles were analysed to make a synthesis of the various techniques with their main indications and contra-indications.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery includes various surgical procedures. The usual techniques are described, their major benefits and drawbacks are discussed. The main goals of anaesthetic management are preservation of ventricular function and systemic perfusion, detection and treatment of myocardial ischaemia, prevention of hypothermia in case of coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart via sternotomy, intermittent selective ventilation of the collapsed lung using CPAP in case of limited thoracotomy. Expertise in transoesophageal echocardiography is essential for insertion and checking the accurate positioning of the various catheters of the endovascular CPB Heartport system (pulmonary vent, endosinus catheter, venous cannula, endoaortic clamp) allowing coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve surgery through limited thoracotomy and finally, detection of retained intracardiac air and assessment of complete clearing of cardiac cavities after mitral valve surgery through limited thoracotomy and aortic valve surgery via ministernotomy. Short-acting anaesthetic agents allow rapid recovery from anaesthesia, early extubation and discharge to the surgical ward within 24 h, whereas overall time spent in the operating room is often longer than with conventional cardiac surgery.

Infusion of propofol, sufentanil, or midazolam for sedation after aortic surgery: comparison of oxygen consumption and hemodynamic stability

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare quality of sedation, hemodynamic stability, and oxygen consumption of three different drugs for continuous i.v. sedation in the immediate postoperative period in patients scheduled for aortic surgery (propofol [n = 12], sufentanil [n = 12], or midazolam [n = 12]). After arrival in the recovery room, patients were randomized into one of the following groups: Group P (continuous infusion of propofol 2 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)), Group S (continuous infusion of sufentanil 0.25 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1), with bolus doses of midazolam 2 mg to maintain sedation at 3-4 on the Ramsay scale), and Group M (continuous infusion of midazolam 0.07-0.15 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) to maintain sedation at 3-4 on the Ramsay scale). The three drugs were associated with similar hemodynamic stability, incidence of myocardial ischemia, and comparable kinetics and mean values for VO2, but a significant higher number of peaks for VO2 in Group S during the period of rewarming. To obtain an appropriate Ramsay score, we needed to increase the rate of administration of the drug in Group P, and to decrease this rate in Group M. After the drugs were discontinued, Group P required mechanical ventilation for less time. In conclusion, propofol is as effective as sufentanil or midazolam in controlling increased VO2 postoperatively. The initial dose of 2 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) had to be increased for most patients. In addition, propofol sedation is associated with a quicker recovery compared with midazolam and sufentanil.

IMPLICATIONS

A prospective, randomized comparison of propofol, sufentanil and midazolam infusions revealed similar effects on hemodynamics, oxygen consumption, and rate of myocardial ischemia after aortic surgery, although propofol was associated with a quicker recovery compared with midazolam and sufentanil.

The use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of the duration of mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The medical ICU of Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a university-affiliated urban teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Two hundred forty-two consecutive ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient surveillance and data collection.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome measure was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included ICU and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, and acquired organ system derangements. A total of 93 (38.4%) mechanically ventilated patients received continuous i.v. sedation while 149 (61.6%) patients received either bolus administration of i.v. sedation (n=64) or no i.v. sedation (n=85) following intubation. The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer for patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation compared with patients not receiving continuous i.v. sedation (185+/-190 h vs 55.6+/-75.6 h; p<0.001). Similarly, the lengths of intensive care (13.5+/-33.7 days vs 4.8+/-4.1 days; p<0.001) and hospitalization (21.0+/-25.1 days vs 12.8+/-14.1 days; p<0.001) were statistically longer among patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation. Multiple linear regression analysis, adjusting for age, gender, severity of illness, mortality, indication for mechanical ventilation, use of chemical paralysis, presence of a tracheostomy, and the number of acquired organ system derangements, found the adjusted duration of mechanical ventilation to be significantly longer for patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation compared with patients who did not receive continuous i.v. sedation (148 h [95% confidence interval: 121, 175 h] vs 78.7 h [95% confidence interval: 68.9, 88.6 h]; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude from these preliminary observational data that the use of continuous i.v. sedation may be associated with the prolongation of mechanical ventilation. This study suggests that strategies targeted at reducing the use of continuous i.v. sedation could shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation for some patients. Prospective randomized clinical trials, using well-designed sedation guidelines and protocols, are required to determine whether patient-specific outcomes (eg, duration of mechanical ventilation, patient comfort) can be improved compared with conventional sedation practices.