Inhaled sedation in the intensive care unit

Volatile Anesthetic Sedation for Critically Ill Patients

Volatile anesthetics have multiple properties that make them useful for sedation in the intensive care unit. The team-based approach to volatile anesthetic sedation leverages these properties to provide a safe and effective alternative to intravenous sedatives.

The influence of anaesthesia on cancer growth

BACKGROUND

Oncological patients make up a large proportion of all surgical patients. Through its influence on the patient's inflammatory and immune system, the choice of anaesthetic technique has an indirect impact on the health of the individual patient and on public health. Both the specific and the non-specific immune system have a major influence on the recurrence of carcinomas. The pathophysiological basis for growth and metastasis after surgery is the physiological response to stress. Inflammation is the organism's universal response to stress. Anaesthetics and adjuvants influence perioperative inflammation in different ways and have an indirect effect on tumour growth and metastasis. In vitro studies have shown how individual anaesthetics influence the growth and spread of cancer, but clinical studies have not confirmed these results. Nevertheless, it is advisable to use an anaesthetic that has shown lesser effect on the growth of cancer cells in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we focus on the area of the effects of anaesthesia on tumour growth. The field is still relatively unexplored, there are only few clinical prospective studies and their results are controversial. Based on the review of new research findings we report on recommendations about anaesthetics and anaesthetic techniques that might be preferable for oncological surgical procedures.

Effects on mechanical power of different devices used for inhaled sedation in a bench model of protective ventilation in ICU

BACKGROUND

Inhaled sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has received increasing attention. However, inhaled sedation devices increase dead-space ventilation and an undesirable effect is the increase in minute ventilation needed to maintain CO2 removal. A consequence of raising minute ventilation is an increase in mechanical power (MP) that can promote lung injury. However, the effect of inhaled sedation devices on MP remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a bench study to assess and compare the effects of three devices delivering inhaled sevoflurane currently available in ICU (AnaConDa-50 mL (ANA-50), AnaConDa-100 mL (ANA-100), and MIRUS) on MP by using a test lung model set with three compliances (20, 40, and 60 mL/cmH2O). We simulated lung-protective ventilation using a low tidal volume and two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (5 and 15 cmH2O) under ambient temperature and dry conditions. Following the insertion of the devices, either the respiratory rate or tidal volume was increased in 15%-steps until end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) returned to the baseline value. MP was calculated at baseline and after EtCO2 correction using a simplified equation.

RESULTS

Following device insertion, the EtCO2 increase was significantly greater with MIRUS (+ 78 ± 13%) and ANA-100 (+ 100 ± 11%) than with ANA-50 (+ 49 ± 7%). After normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation, MP significantly increased by more than 50% with all inhaled sedation devices compared to controls. The lowest increase in MP was observed with ANA-50 (p < 0.05 versus ANA-100 and MIRUS). The Costa index, another parameter assessing the mechanical energy delivered to the lungs, calculated as driving pressure × 4 + respiratory rate, significantly increased by more than 20% in all experimental conditions. Additional experiments performed under body temperature, ambient pressure, and gas saturated with water vapor conditions, confirmed the main results with an increase in MP > 50% with all devices after normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled sedation devices substantially increased MP in this bench model of protective ventilation, which might limit their benefits in ARDS.

Appraisal of Postoperative Outcomes of Volatile and Intravenous Anesthetics: A Network Meta-Analysis of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative efficacy of specific regimens used as primary anesthetics, as well as the potential combination of volatile and intravenous anesthetics among patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery.

DESIGN

This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328) and conducted according to the PRISMA-NMA framework. Literature searches were conducted up to April 1, 2022 across relevant databases. Risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB-2 and CINeMA, respectively. Pooled treatment effects were compared with propofol monotherapy.

SETTING

Fifty-three randomized controlled trials (N = 8,085) were included, of which 46 trials (N = 6,604) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Trials enrolling adults (≥18) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, using the same induction regimens, and comparing volatile and/or total intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance of anesthesia. Given that the majority of trials focused on those undergoing cardiac surgery and the heterogeneity, analyses were restricted to this population.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Outcomes of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), myocardial infarction, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, stroke, and delirium. Across 19 trials (N = 1,821; 9 arms; I2 = 64.5%), sevoflurane combined with propofol decreased ICU LOS (mean difference [MD] -18.26 hours; 95% CI -34.78 to -1.73 hours), whereas midazolam with propofol (MD 17.51 hours; 95% CI 2.78-32.25 hours) was associated with a significant increase in ICU LOS, when compared with propofol monotherapy. Among 27 trials (N = 4,080; 10 arms; I2 = 0%), midazolam was associated with significantly greater risk of myocardial infarction versus propofol (risk ratio 1.94; 95% CI 1.01-3.71). There were no significant differences across other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, sevoflurane with propofol was associated with decreased ICU LOS compared with propofol monotherapy. Midazolam with propofol increased ICU LOS compared with propofol alone. The combined use of intravenous and volatile anesthetics should be explored further. Future trials in thoracic and vascular surgery are warranted.

Comparison between sevoflurane and propofol on immunomodulation in an in vitro model of sepsis

Introduction

Patients with sepsis often require sedation and/or anesthesia. Although the immunomodulatory effects of anesthetics have been increasingly recognized, the molecular mechanisms require better elucidation. We compared the effects of sevoflurane with propofol on the expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers released by monocytes/macrophages and blood/bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) neutrophils, the phagocytic capacity of monocytes/ macrophages, and neutrophil migration, as well as mediators associated with alveolar epithelial and endothelial cells obtained from rats with sepsis.

Methods

Polymicrobial sepsis was induced by cecal ligation and puncture in nine male Wistar rats. After 48 h, animals were euthanized and their monocytes/alveolar macrophages, blood and BALF neutrophils, as well as alveolar epithelial and endothelial cells were extracted, and then exposed to (1) sevoflurane (1 minimal alveolar concentration), (2) propofol (50 μM), or (3) saline, control (CTRL) for 1 h.

Results

Sevoflurane reduced interleukin (IL)-6 mRNA expression in monocytes and alveolar macrophages (p = 0.007, p = 0.029), whereas propofol decreased IL-6 mRNA only in alveolar macrophages (p = 0.027) compared with CTRL. Sevoflurane increased IL-10 expression (p = 0.0002) in monocytes compared with propofol and increased IL-10 mRNA and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β mRNA (p = 0.037, p = 0.045) compared with CTRL. Both sevoflurane and propofol did not affect mRNA expression of IL-10 and TGF-β in alveolar macrophages. The phagocytic capacity of monocytes (p = 0.0006) and alveolar macrophages (p = 0.0004) was higher with sevoflurane compared with propofol. Sevoflurane, compared with CTRL, reduced IL-1β mRNA (p = 0.003, p = 0.009) and C-X-C chemokine receptor 2 mRNA (CXCR2, p = 0.032 and p = 0.042) in blood and BALF neutrophils, and increased CXCR4 mRNA only in BALF neutrophils (p = 0.004). Sevoflurane increased blood neutrophil migration (p = 0.015) compared with propofol. Both sevoflurane and propofol increased zonula occludens-1 mRNA (p = 0.046, p = 0.003) in alveolar epithelial cells and reduced Toll-like receptor 4 mRNA (p = 0.043, p = 0.006) in alveolar endothelial cells compared with CTRL. Only propofol reduced surfactant protein B mRNA (p = 0.028) in alveolar epithelial cells.

Discussion

Sevoflurane, compared with propofol, increased anti-inflammatory biomarkers in monocytes, but not in alveolar macrophages, enhanced monocyte/alveolar macrophage phagocytic capacity and increased neutrophil migration in in vitro experimental sepsis. Both propofol and sevoflurane protected lung epithelial and endothelial cells.

Effects of sevoflurane on lung epithelial permeability in experimental models of acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have suggested that inhaled sevoflurane may have lung-protective effects and clinical trials are ongoing to assess its impact on major clinical outcomes in patients with ARDS. However, the underlying mechanisms of these potential benefits are largely unknown. This investigation focused on the effects of sevoflurane on lung permeability changes after sterile injury and the possible associated mechanisms.

METHODS

To investigate whether sevoflurane could decrease lung alveolar epithelial permeability through the Ras homolog family member A (RhoA)/phospho-Myosin Light Chain 2 (Ser19) (pMLC)/filamentous (F)-actin pathway and whether the receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) may mediate these effects. Lung permeability was assessed in RAGE^-/- and littermate wild-type C57BL/6JRj mice on days 0, 1, 2, and 4 after acid injury, alone or followed by exposure at 1% sevoflurane. Cell permeability of mouse lung epithelial cells was assessed after treatment with cytomix (a mixture of TNFɑ, IL-1β, and IFNγ) and/or RAGE antagonist peptide (RAP), alone or followed by exposure at 1% sevoflurane. Levels of zonula occludens-1, E-cadherin, and pMLC were quantified, along with F-actin immunostaining, in both models. RhoA activity was assessed in vitro.

RESULTS

In mice after acid injury, sevoflurane was associated with better arterial oxygenation, decreased alveolar inflammation and histological damage, and non-significantly attenuated the increase in lung permeability. Preserved protein expression of zonula occludens-1 and less increase of pMLC and actin cytoskeletal rearrangement were observed in injured mice treated with sevoflurane. In vitro, sevoflurane markedly decreased electrical resistance and cytokine release of MLE-12 cells, which was associated with higher protein expression of zonula occludens-1. Improved oxygenation levels and attenuated increase in lung permeability and inflammatory response were observed in RAGE^-/- mice compared to wild-type mice, but RAGE deletion did not influence the effects of sevoflurane on permeability indices after injury. However, the beneficial effect of sevoflurane previously observed in wild-type mice on day 1 after injury in terms of higher PaO₂/FiO₂ and decreased alveolar levels of cytokines was not found in RAGE^-/- mice. In vitro, RAP alleviated some of the beneficial effects of sevoflurane on electrical resistance and cytoskeletal rearrangement, which was associated with decreased cytomix-induced RhoA activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane decreased injury and restored epithelial barrier function in two in vivo and in vitro models of sterile lung injury, which was associated with increased expression of junction proteins and decreased actin cytoskeletal rearrangement. In vitro findings suggest that sevoflurane may decrease lung epithelial permeability through the RhoA/pMLC/F-actin pathway.

Inhaled Sedation with Volatile Anesthetics for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review

Inhaled sedation was recently approved in Europe as an alternative to intravenous sedative drugs for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize the available data from the literature published between 2005 and 2023 in terms of the efficacy, safety, and potential clinical benefits of inhaled sedation for ICU mechanically ventilated patients. The results indicated that inhaled sedation reduces the time to extubation and weaning from mechanical ventilation and reduces opioid and muscle relaxant consumption, thereby possibly enhancing recovery. Several researchers have reported its potential cardio-protective, anti-inflammatory or bronchodilator properties, alongside its minimal metabolism by the liver and kidney. The reflection devices used with inhaled sedation may increase the instrumental dead space volume and could lead to hypercapnia if the ventilator settings are not optimal and the end tidal carbon dioxide is not monitored. The risk of air pollution can be prevented by the adequate scavenging of the expired gases. Minimizing atmospheric pollution can be achieved through the judicious use of the inhalation sedation for selected groups of ICU patients, where the benefits are maximized compared to intravenous sedation. Very rarely, inhaled sedation can induce malignant hyperthermia, which prompts urgent diagnosis and treatment by the ICU staff. Overall, there is growing evidence to support the benefits of inhaled sedation as an alternative for intravenous sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. The indication and management of any side effects should be clearly set and protocolized by each ICU. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still required to investigate whether inhaled sedation should be prioritized over the current practice of intravenous sedation.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation.

METHODS

We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU.

RESULTS

Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.