Analgesie und Sedierung in der Intensivmedizin

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

The Benefit of Benzodiazepine Reduction: Improving Sedation in Surgical Intensive Care

Aims:

Sedation, as it is often required in critical care, is associated with immobilization, prolonged ventilation, and increased morbidity. Most sedation protocols are based on benzodiazepines. The presented study analyzes the benefit of benzodiazepine-free sedation.

Methods:

In 2008, 134 patients were treated according to a protocol using benzodiazepine and propofol (Group 1). In 2009, we introduced a new sedation strategy based on sufentanil, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuroleptics, and antidepressants, which was applied in 140 consecutive patients (Group 2). Depth of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of Intensive Care Unit, and hospital stay were analyzed.

Results:

Group 1 had both a longer duration of deep sedation (18.7 ± 2.5 days vs. 12.6 ± 1.85 days, P = 0.031) and a longer duration of controlled ventilation (311, 35 ± 32.69 vs. 143, 96 ± 20.76 h, P < 0.0001) than Group 2. Ventilator days were more frequent in Group 1 (653, 66 ± 98.37 h vs. 478, 89 ± 68.92 h, P = 0.128).

Conclusions:

The benzodiazepine-free sedation protocol has been shown to significantly reduce depth of sedation and controlled ventilation. Additional evidence is needed to ascertain reduction of ventilator days which would not only be of benefit for the patient but also for the hospital Management.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Patients undergoing endoscopy frequently require sedation, which commonly includes the administration of midazolam or dexmedetomidine. Previous meta-analyses have mainly focused on comparing the effects of these two drugs in intensive care unit patients. In the present study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the sedative and clinical effectiveness of these two drugs in patients undergoing endoscopy were searched in a number of databases. The meta-analysis showed that dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significantly lower rate of respiratory depression and adverse events compared with those presented upon midazolam administration. A significant difference was also observed in the sedation potency of the sedatives. The current controlled data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be an alternative to midazolam in the sedation for endoscopy. However, more high-quality and well-designed studies are required to further evaluate this conclusion.

Performance of the A-line Autoregressive Index (AAI) and of the Bispectral Index (BIS) at assessing depth of short-term sedation following cardiac surgery

This study evaluated the correlation and agreement between the Bispectral Index (BIS) or A-line Autoregressive Index (AAI) and a clinical scoring system, the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), in 40 patients after elective cardiac surgery and admission to the intensive care unit. All patients received sedation with propofol according to the study protocol. BIS, AAI and RSS were documented at two different levels of sedation: deep sedation RSS 4 - 6; and slight sedation/extubation RSS 2 - 3. Both the BIS and AAI agreed well with the RSS (eta-coefficients of 0.902 and 0.836, respectively, for mean overall RSS stages). The systems agreed well among each other (overall intra-class correlations of 0.670 for consistency and 0.676 for absolute agreement). There was significant discrimination between RSS 2 - 3 and RSS 4 - 6 with BIS and AAI (BIS mean difference of 24.73, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 21.08 - 28.37; AAI mean difference of 20.90, 95% CI 14.64 - 27.16). In conclusion, BIS and AAI correlated well with RSS overall and also at different levels of sedation.

[Remifentanil-propofol versus fentanyl-midazolam combinations for intracranial surgery: influence of anaesthesia technique and intensive sedation on ventilation times and duration of stay in the ICU]

INTRODUCTION

After neurosurgery patients often need to be sedated and ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, rapid postoperative recovery and neurological examination are particularly important for the early recognition of complications. In this retrospective study two different strategies of anaesthesia technique and ICU sedation (fentanyl-midazolam versus remifentanil-propofol) were compared.

METHODS

Intraoperatively, patients received continuous infusions of either fentanyl (0.2-1.0 mg/h) and midazolam (2-10 mg/h) or remifentanil (0.2-0.5 microg/kg body weight/min) and propofol (3-6 mg/kg body weight/h). After arrival in the ICU fentanyl (0.03-0.2 mg/h) and midazolam (2-12 mg/h) or remifentanil (0.1-0.2 microg/kg body weight/min) and propofol (0.5-3 mg/kg body weight/h) were infused to reach a Ramsay score of 4. The times between termination of infusion and extubation and the length of stay in the ICU were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (n=30 each group) undergoing supratentorial brain tumour surgery were enrolled. The groups were comparable for age, weight, ASA status (American Society of Anesthesiologists) and duration of drug administration (remifentanil-propofol 528+/-382 min versus fentanyl-midazolam 548+/-360 min). Extubation times were significantly shorter after remifentanil-propofol (47 min) than after fentanyl-midazolam (481 min), and the length of stay in the ICU was also significantly reduced (1.8 days versus 3.7 days). As a result of prolonged unconsciousness and impaired neurological assessability, a brain CT scan was necessary in 3 patients after fentanyl-midazolam to exclude neurosurgical complications.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study demonstrates that remifentanil-propofol anaesthesia and ICU sedation are superior to the combination of fentanyl and midazolam in terms of ventilation time and length of ICU stay. Moreover, the use of fentanyl-midazolam may lead to unnecessary CT scans.

Sedation and analgesia in German intensive care units: how is it done in reality? Results of a patient-based survey of analgesia and sedation

OBJECTIVE

This study carried out the first patient-oriented survey on the practice of analgesia and sedation in German intensive care units, examining whether the goals of early spontaneous breathing and awake, cooperative patients are achieved.

DESIGN

A postal survey was sent to 261 hospitals in Germany. Each hospital received three patient-oriented forms with questions regarding current agents and techniques for analgesia and sedation of a specific patient. Responses were obtained from 220 (84%) hospitals which returned 305 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Patients' Ramsay sedation scale was significantly higher in all phases of analgesia and sedation, indicating that the patients were more deeply sedated than currently intended by the therapist. Propofol was used for most of the patients during short-term sedation (57%) and during weaning (48%). The preferred agent for sedation longer than 72[Symbol: see text]h was midazolam (66%).

CONCLUSION

The choice of agents and techniques for analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit thus follows the German guidelines. The fact that the patients were more deeply sedated than intended by the therapist in all phases of sedation may be due to the low use of sedation scales and clinical practice guidelines or to the lack of training in using these techniques.