Predictors of severe hypotension in neurocritical care patients sedated with propofol

Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Compared With Propofol or Dexmedetomidine as Continuous ICU Sedation

BACKGROUND

Ketamine has seen increased use for sedation in the intensive care unit. In contrast to propofol or dexmedetomidine, ketamine may provide a positive effect on hemodynamics.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the development of clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) between critically ill adults receiving sedation with ketamine and either propofol or dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to an intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2016 and January 2021.

RESULTS

Patients in the ketamine group (n = 78) had significantly less clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia compared with those receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine (n = 156) (34.6% vs 63.5%; P < 0.001). Patients receiving ketamine also experienced smaller degree of hypotension observed by percent decrease in mean arterial pressure (25.3% [17.4] vs 33.8% [14.5]; P < 0.001) and absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure (26.5 [23.8] vs 42.0 [37.8] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and bradycardia (15.5 [24.3] vs 32.0 [23.0] reduction in beats per minute; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression modeling, receipt of propofol or dexmedetomidine was the only independent predictor of a negative hemodynamic event (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 6.1; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Ketamine was associated with less clinically relevant hypotension or bradycardia when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine, in addition to a smaller absolute decrease in hemodynamic parameters. The clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation.

Comparison of Ketofol (Combination of Ketamine and Propofol) and Propofol Anesthesia in Aneurysmal Clipping Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Control Trial

Background:

The maintenance of hemodynamic stability is of pivotal importance in aneurysm surgeries. While administering anesthesia in these patients, the fluctuations in blood pressure may directly affect transmural pressure, thereby precipitating rupture of aneurysm and various other associated complications. We aimed to compare the effects of ketofol with propofol alone when used as an induction and maintenance anesthetic agent during surgical clipping of intracranial aneurysms.

Materials and Methods:

Forty adult, good-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients posted for aneurysm neck clipping were included in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups. One group received a combination of ketamine and propofol (1:5 ratio) and the other group received propofol for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Intraoperative hemodynamic stability, intraventricular pressure, and quality of brain relaxation were studied in both the groups.

Results:

The patients were comparable with respect to demographic profile, Hunt and Hess grade, world federation of neurological surgeons (WFNS) grade, Fisher grade, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, optic nerve sheath diameter, and baseline hemoglobin. Intraoperative hemodynamics were better maintained in the ketofol group during induction, with only 15% of patients having >20% fall in mean arterial pressure (from baseline) intraoperatively, compared to 45% of patients receiving propofol alone (P = 0.038). The mean intraventricular pressure values in both the groups were in the normal range and the quality of brain relaxation was similar, with no significant difference (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Ketofol combination (1:5) as compared to propofol alone provides better hemodynamic stability on induction as well as maintenance anesthesia without causing an increase in intracranial pressure. Effect of ketofol on cerebral oxygenation and quality of emergence need to be evaluated further by larger multicentric, randomized control trials.

Adverse Hemodynamic Events Associated With Concomitant Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients

PURPOSE

Nonbenzodiazepines are preferred for continuous sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Although dexmedetomidine and propofol have blood pressure lowering properties, limited data exist about the hemodynamic effects of concomitant administration. The purpose of this study was to compare the adverse hemodynamic event rate with concomitant dexmedetomidine and propofol compared to either agent alone in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university medical center. Adult ICU patients (≥18 years) admitted between October 20, 2015, and January 25, 2018, and administered concurrent dexmedetomidine and propofol or either agent alone for ≥24 hours were included. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and sedative dosing requirements were assessed from initiation to 72 hours after initiation. The primary end point was comparing the incidence of hypotension among study groups. Secondary aims compared the incidence of tachycardia and bradycardia as well as clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 276 patients were included among combination (n = 93), dexmedetomidine (n = 91), and propofol (n = 92) groups. The incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in patients administered concomitant dexmedetomidine and propofol (62.4%) compared to those administered dexmedetomidine (23.1%) or propofol (23.9%) alone (P < .0001). Adjunctive dexmedetomidine with propofol was also associated with higher rates of clinically relevant hypotension requiring treatment (P = .048). The tachycardia incidence in the concomitant, dexmedetomidine, and propofol groups were 30.1%, 28.6%, and 14.1%, respectively (P = 02). Only 1.4% (n = 4) of all study patients developed bradycardia. Concomitant therapy was an independent risk factor of hypotension compared to either dexmedetomidine (odds ratio [OR]: 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.61-17.3, P < .0001) or propofol (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.24-6.74, P = .014) monotherapy. Patients experiencing hypotension were associated with worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant dexmedetomidine and propofol use in mechanically ventilated patients increased the risk of hypotensive events. Adjunctive dexmedetomidine with propofol administration in the critically ill warrants caution.

Adverse events of conscious sedation using midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background

This study was conducted to identify the types and incidence of adverse events associated with midazolam, which is the most widely used drug to induce conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, and to analyze the factors associated with hypoxemia and sedation failure.

Methods

Of 87,740 patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy between February 2015 and May 2017, the electronic medical records of 335 who reportedly developed adverse events were retrospectively reviewed, and analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for hypoxemia and sedation failure, the two most frequent adverse events among those manifested during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

The overall adverse event rate was 0.38% (n = 335); hypoxemia was most frequent, accounting for 40.7% (n = 90), followed by sedation failure (34.8%, n = 77), delayed discharge from the recovery room (22.1%, n = 49), and hypotension (2.2%, n = 5). Compared with the control group, the hypoxemia group did not show any significant differences in sex and body weight, but mean age was significantly older (P < 0.001) and a significantly lower dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001). In the group with sedation failure, the mean rate was higher in men (P < 0.001) and a significantly higher dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001), but no age difference was found.

Conclusions

Midazolam-based conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy can lead to various adverse events. In particular, as elderly patients are at higher risk of developing hypoxemia, midazolam dose adjustment and careful monitoring are required in this group.

Acute Management of Hypertension Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is responsible for approximately 15% of strokes annually in the United States, with nearly 1 in 3 of these patients dying without ever leaving the hospital. Because this disproportionate mortality risk has been stagnant for nearly 3 decades, a main area of research has been focused on the optimal strategies to reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes. The acute hypertensive response following ICH has been shown to facilitate ICH expansion and is a strong predictor of mortality. Rapidly reducing blood pressure was once thought to induce cerebral ischemia, though has been found to be safe in certain patient populations. Clinicians must work quickly to determine whether specific patient populations may benefit from acute lowering of systolic blood pressure (SBP) following ICH. This review provides nurses with a summary of the available literature on blood pressure control following ICH. It focuses on intravenous and oral antihypertensive medications available in the United States that may be utilized to acutely lower SBP, as well as medications outside of the antihypertensive class used during the acute setting that may reduce SBP.

Effects From Continuous Infusions of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on Hemodynamic Stability in Critically Ill Adult Patients With Septic Shock

PURPOSE

To compare the development of clinically significant hemodynamic event (ie, hypotension or bradycardia) in adults with septic shock receiving either propofol or dexmedetomidine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults with septic shock admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at an academic medical center between July 2013 and July 2017.

RESULTS

Patients in the propofol (n = 35) and dexmedetomidine (n = 37) groups developed a clinically significant hemodynamic event at similar frequencies (31.4 vs 29.7%, P = .99). All patients with an event experienced hypotension, whereas 2 (5.4%) patients in the dexmedetomidine group also experienced bradycardia. Most patients in both groups (70% vs 90%) received an escalating sedative dose, and almost half (42.9%) in the dexmedetomidine group had the sedative dosage increased more frequently than every 30 minutes. Patients in both groups had similar ICU (24.1 vs 24.3 days, P = .98) and hospital (37.9 vs 29.7 days, P = .29) lengths of stay. There was no difference in median time to hemodynamic event between the groups (propofol 1 hour [interquartile range, IQR: 0.5-9.9] vs dexmedetomidine 2 hours [IQR: 1.5-11.1 hours], P = .85).

CONCLUSION

Patients with septic shock receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine experienced similar rates of clinically significant hemodynamic events. Most patients did not experience an event and those who did most frequently did so in the first couple of hours of therapy.

[Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.

Adverse Drug Reactions in the Intensive Care Unit

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesirable effects of medications used in normal doses [1]. ADRs can occur during treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) or result in ICU admissions. A meta-analysis of 4139 studies suggests the incidence of ADRs among hospitalized patients is 17% [2]. Because of underreporting and misdiagnosis, the incidence of ADRs may be much higher and has been reported to be as high as 36% [3]. Critically ill patients are at especially high risk because of medical complexity, numerous high-alert medications, complex and often challenging drug dosing and medication regimens, and opportunity for error related to the distractions of the ICU environment [4]. Table 1 summarizes the ADRs included in this chapter.

Continuous Infusion Antiepileptic Medications for Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Review for Nurses

Status epilepticus requires treatment with emergent initial therapy with a benzodiazepine and urgent control therapy with an additional antiepileptic drug (AED) to terminate clinical and/or electrographic seizure activity. However, nearly one-third of patients will prove refractory to the aforementioned therapies and are prone to a higher degree of neuronal injury, resistance to pharmacotherapy, and death. Current guidelines for refractory status epilepticus (RSE) recommend initiating a continuous intravenous (CIV) anesthetic over bolus dosing with a different AED. Continuous intravenous agents most commonly used for this indication include midazolam, propofol, and pentobarbital, but ketamine is an alternative option. Comparative studies illustrating the optimal agent are lacking, and selection is often based on adverse effect profiles and patient-specific factors. In addition, dosing and titration are largely based on small studies and expert opinion with continuous electroencephalogram monitoring used to guide intensity and duration of treatment. Nonetheless, the doses required to halt seizure activity are likely to produce profound adverse effects that clinicians should anticipate and combat. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available RSE literature focusing on CIV midazolam, pentobarbital, propofol, and ketamine, and to serve as a primer for nurses providing care to these patients.

The Future of Intensive Care Unit Sedation: A Report of Continuous Infusion Ketamine as an Alternative Sedative Agent

This report describes a patient case utilizing a nontraditional sedative, continuous infusion ketamine, as an alternative agent for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation. A 27-year-old female presented for neurosurgical management of a coup contrecoup injury, left temporal fracture, epidural hemorrhage (EDH), and temporal contusion leading to sustained mechanical ventilation. The patient experienced profound agitation during mechanical ventilation and developed adverse effects with all traditional sedatives: benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine, opioids, and propofol. Ketamine was titrated to effect and eliminated the need for other agents. This led to successful ventilator weaning, extubation, and transition of care. Given the unique side effect profile of ketamine, it is imperative that information is disseminated on potential utilization of this agent. More information is needed regarding dosing, monitoring, and long-term effects of utilizing ketamine as a continuous ICU sedative, but given the analgesia, anesthesia, and cardiopulmonary stability, future utilization of this medication for this indication seems promising.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.