Inhaled isoflurane via the anaesthetic conserving device versus propofol for sedation of invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units in Germany and Slovenia: an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Management of pain and sedation in the intensive care unit

Advances in our approach to treating pain and sedation when caring for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been propelled by decades of robust trial data, knowledge gained from patient experiences, and our evolving understanding of how pain and sedation strategies affect patient survival and long term outcomes. These data contribute to current practice guidelines prioritizing analgesia-first sedation strategies (analgosedation) that target light sedation when possible, use of short acting sedatives, and avoidance of benzodiazepines. Together, these strategies allow the patient to be more awake and able to participate in early mobilization and family interactions. The covid-19 pandemic introduced unique challenges in the ICU that affected delivery of best practices and patient outcomes. Compliance with best practices has not returned to pre-covid levels. After emerging from the pandemic and refocusing our attention on optimal pain and sedation management in the ICU, it is imperative to revisit the data that contributed to our current recommendations, review the importance of best practices on patient outcomes, and consider new strategies when advancing patient care.

Challenges in Transitioning from Controlled to Assisted Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Management

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents significant challenges in critical care, primarily due to its inflammatory nature, which leads to impaired gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. While mechanical ventilation (MV) is essential for patient support, the transition from controlled to assisted ventilation is complex and may be associated with intensive care unit-acquired weakness, ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction and patient self-inflicted lung injury. This paper explores the multifaceted challenges encountered during this transition, with a focus on respiratory effort, sedation management, and monitoring techniques, and investigates innovative approaches to enhance patient outcomes. The key strategies include optimizing sedation protocols, employing advanced monitoring methods like esophageal pressure measurements, and implementing partial neuromuscular blockade to prevent excessive respiratory effort. We also emphasize the importance of personalized treatment plans and the integration of artificial intelligence to facilitate timely transitions. By highlighting early rehabilitation techniques, continuously assessing the respiratory drive, and fostering collaboration among multidisciplinary teams, clinicians can improve the transition from controlled to assisted MV, ultimately enhancing recovery and long-term respiratory health in patients with ARDS.

Malignant Hyperthermia

OBJECTIVES

A narrative expert review aiming to summarize the clinical epidemiology and management of critically ill patients with malignant hyperthermia (MH).

DATA SOURCES

Medline searches were conducted to identify relevant articles describing the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of MH. Guidelines from key MH organizations were also incorporated into this review.

STUDY SELECTION

Relevant studies regarding MH in both ICU and perioperative settings were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from relevant studies were summarized and qualitatively assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

MH is a severe reaction triggered by inhalational volatile anesthetics and succinylcholine in genetically susceptible patients. The condition is characterized by an early onset (min to hr) rise in temperature, hypercarbia, and muscular rigidity following exposure to triggering medications with potential complications of coagulopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and acute kidney injury. Acute management necessitates a coordinated multidisciplinary team approach with specific management using dantrolene, active cooling, and hyperventilation. A suspected MH reaction has important implications for future anesthetic exposure for both the patient and their family. All suspected reactions should be followed up at a specialized MH testing center using muscle contracture and genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of inhalational anesthetics in the ICU underscores the need for enhanced education on the diagnosis and management of MH to ensure optimal patient sedation care and safety.

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

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

INhaled Sedation versus Propofol in REspiratory failure in the Intensive Care Unit (INSPiRE-ICU1): protocol for a randomised, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Sedation in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) is commonly achieved with intravenous infusions of propofol, dexmedetomidine or benzodiazepines. Significant limitations associated with each can impact their usage. Inhaled isoflurane has potential benefit for ICU sedation due to its safety record, sedation profile, lack of metabolism and accumulation, and fast wake-up time. Administration in the ICU has historically been restricted by the lack of a safe and effective delivery system for the ICU. The Sedaconda Anaesthetic Conserving Device-S (Sedaconda ACD-S) has enabled the delivery of inhaled volatile anaesthetics for sedation with standard ICU ventilators, but it has not yet been rigorously evaluated in the USA. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled isoflurane delivered via the Sedaconda ACD-S compared with intravenous propofol for sedation of mechanically ventilated ICU adults in USA hospitals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

INhaled Sedation versus Propofol in REspiratory failure in the ICU (INSPiRE-ICU1) is a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, assessor-blinded trial that aims to enrol 235 critically ill adults in 14 hospitals across the USA. Eligible patients are randomised in a 1.5:1 ratio for a treatment duration of up to 48 (±6) hours or extubation, whichever occurs first, with primary follow-up period of 30 days and additional follow-up to 6 months. Primary outcome is percentage of time at target sedation range. Key secondary outcomes include use of opioids during treatment, spontaneous breathing efforts during treatment, wake-up time at end of treatment and cognitive recovery after treatment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Trial protocol has been approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and central (Advarra SSU00208265) or local institutional review boards ((IRB), Cleveland Clinic IRB FWA 00005367, Tufts HS IRB 20221969, Houston Methodist IRB PRO00035247, Mayo Clinic IRB Mod22-001084-08, University of Chicago IRB21-1917-AM011 and Intermountain IRB 033175). Results will be presented at scientific conferences, submitted for publication, and provided to the FDA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05312385.

Anesthetic Gas Scavenging System for Gas Evacuation in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Inhaled sedation is increasing in ICUs, with active carbon filters (ACFs) commonly used for evacuating halogenated gases. However, the potential benefits of a waste anesthetic gas system (WAGS) similar to the ones used in operating rooms should be explored. To limit the suction over the flow sensor where the WAGS is connected on ICU ventilators, an anesthetic gas receiving system (AGRS) is required, constituting with the WAGS an active gas receiving and scavenging system (AGRSS). Ensuring that this whole device does not compromise the flow sensor reliability is crucial. The aim of this study was to compare various gas evacuation devices and assess the reliability of AGRSS on ICU ventilators.

METHODS

In this experimental study, pressures and flows were recorded during the ventilation of a test lung using various ventilator settings and gas evacuation methods: no device (reference condition), ACF, the WAGS alone, AGRSS (WAGS and AGRS together), and the expiratory valve connected to the medical vacuum system with the AGRS in between. Visual comparisons of the pressure and flow curves followed by a statistical analysis comparing median pressures and flows of each device to the reference were performed.

RESULTS

The test lung model demonstrated consistent comparability in pressures and flows among all devices, except for the WAGS alone, which exhibited discordance through significant overestimation or underestimation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that using a WAGS with the AGRS system appeared to be reliable for managing gas evacuation in ICUs without compromising pressure or flow delivery. The data from this experimental trial should be confirmed with clinical studies involving human subjects. Given the increasing use of inhaled sedation in ICUs, these results support the daily application of the WAGS with the AGRS for gas evacuation, similar to its established use in anesthesiology.

Impact of inhaled sedation on delirium incidence and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest - A propensity-matched control study (Isocare)

RATIONALE

Poor neurological outcome is common following a cardiac arrest. The use of volatile anesthetic agents has been proposed during post-resuscitation to improve outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of inhaled isoflurane on neurological outcome, delirium incidence, ICU length-of-stay, ventilation duration, mortality during post-resuscitation care of ICU patients.

PATIENTS

510 patients were admitted within our medical ICU following a cardiac arrest during the study period, 401 of them being sedated using intravenous sedation prior to 2017 and 109 of them using inhaled isoflurane according to a standardized protocol following 2017.

RESULTS

Matched-pair analysis depicted a delirium incidence decrease, without improved neurologic outcome on ICU discharge (CPC ≤ 2) for isoflurane patients (16.1% vs 32.2%, p 0.03 and 29% vs 23%, p 0.47, respectively). Ventilation duration and ICU length of stay were shorter for isoflurane patients (78 vs 167 h, p 0.01 and 7.9 vs 8.5 days, p 0.01 respectively). Isoflurane had no impact on mortality.

CONCLUSION

In this propensity-matched control study, isoflurane sedation during the post-resuscitation care of ICU patients was associated with a lower incidence of delirium, a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and a reduced ICU length of stay. Prospective data are needed before its widespread use.

Volatile anesthetics for lung- and diaphragm-protective sedation

This review explores the complex interactions between sedation and invasive ventilation and examines the potential of volatile anesthetics for lung- and diaphragm-protective sedation. In the early stages of invasive ventilation, many critically ill patients experience insufficient respiratory drive and effort, leading to compromised diaphragm function. Compared with common intravenous agents, inhaled sedation with volatile anesthetics better preserves respiratory drive, potentially helping to maintain diaphragm function during prolonged periods of invasive ventilation. In turn, higher concentrations of volatile anesthetics reduce the size of spontaneously generated tidal volumes, potentially reducing lung stress and strain and with that the risk of self-inflicted lung injury. Taken together, inhaled sedation may allow titration of respiratory drive to maintain inspiratory efforts within lung- and diaphragm-protective ranges. Particularly in patients who are expected to require prolonged invasive ventilation, in whom the restoration of adequate but safe inspiratory effort is crucial for successful weaning, inhaled sedation represents an attractive option for lung- and diaphragm-protective sedation. A technical limitation is ventilatory dead space introduced by volatile anesthetic reflectors, although this impact is minimal and comparable to ventilation with heat and moisture exchangers. Further studies are imperative for a comprehensive understanding of the specific effects of inhaled sedation on respiratory drive and effort and, ultimately, how this translates into patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients.

Practical approach to inhaled sedation in the critically ill patient. Sedation, analgesia and Delirium Working Group (GTSAD) of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC)

The use of sedatives in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is essential for relieving anxiety and stress in mechanically ventilated patients, and it is related to clinical outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay in the ICU. Inhaled sedatives offer benefits such as faster awakening and extubation, decreased total opioid and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMB) doses, as well as bronchodilator, anticonvulsant, and cardiopulmonary and neurological protective effects. Inhaled sedation is administered using a specific vaporizer. Isoflurane is the recommended agent due to its efficacy and safety profile. Inhaled sedation is recommended for moderate and deep sedation, prolonged sedation, difficult sedation, patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), status asthmaticus, and super-refractory status epilepticus. By offering these significant advantages, the use of inhaled sedatives allows for a personalized and controlled approach to optimize sedation in the ICU.

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.

Effects of Isoflurane on the Cell Pyroptosis in the Lung Cancer Through the HMGB1/RAGE Pathway

There are many common malignant tumors in clinic. Among them, lung cancer is caused by the failure of suction system, which seriously threatens the life safety of patients. Recent studies have found that anesthetics have achieved certain efficacy in many cancers. Isoflurane, an inhaled anesthetic, is used in this study to explore whether it can prevent the lung cancer development. The A549 and H1299 were purchased. Cell viability was tested by CCK-8 experiment. Cell death and pyroptosis were analyzed by PI staining as well as flow cytometry. HMGB1 as well as RAGE protein levels were tested by Western blot. The same is true of pyroxin-related proteins. The HMGB1 as well as RAGE levels in the lung cancer tissues were determined by Western blot along with immunohistochemistry. Isoflurane treatment can reduce cell viability and promote cell pyroptosis. Additionally, the protein levels of cleaved caspase-1, IL-1β, GSDMD-N, NLRP3, HMGB1, and RAGE were dramatically up-regulated in the lung cancer after isoflurane treatment. Down-regulated proteins in lung cancer tissues include HMGB1 and RAGE proteins. After HMGB1 knockdown or FPS-ZM1 treatment, the role of isoflurane in the lung cancer was neutralized. This study demonstrated that isoflurane induced the cell pyroptosis in the lung cancer through activating the HMGB1/RAGE pathway.

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

BACKGROUND

The objective was to compare sevoflurane, a volatile sedation agent with potential bronchodilatory properties, with propofol on respiratory mechanics in critically ill patients with COPD exacerbation.

METHODS

Prospective study in an ICU enrolling critically ill intubated patients with severe COPD exacerbation and comparing propofol and sevoflurane after 1:1 randomisation. Respiratory system mechanics (airway resistance, PEEPi, trapped volume, ventilatory ratio and respiratory system compliance), gas exchange, vitals, safety and outcome were measured at inclusion and then until H48. Total airway resistance change from baseline to H48 in both sevoflurane and propofol groups was the main endpoint.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were enrolled and were sedated for 126 h(61-228) in the propofol group and 207 h(171-216) in the sevoflurane group. At baseline, airway resistance was 21.6cmH2O/l/s(19.8-21.6) in the propofol group and 20.4cmH2O/l/s(18.6-26.4) in the sevoflurane group, (p = 0.73); trapped volume was 260 ml(176-290) in the propofol group and 73 ml(35-126) in the sevoflurane group, p = 0.02. Intrinsic PEEP was 1.5cmH2O(1-3) in both groups after external PEEP optimization. There was neither early (H4) or late (H48) significant difference in airway resistance and respiratory mechanics parameters between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients intubated with COPD exacerbation, there was no significant difference in respiratory mechanics between sevoflurane and propofol from inclusion to H4 and H48.

Effect of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol, and sevoflurane on sleep homeostasis in rats

BACKGROUND

Sleep disruption is a common occurrence during medical care and is detrimental to patient recovery. Long-term sedation in the critical care setting is a modifiable factor that affects sleep, but the impact of different sedative-hypnotics on sleep homeostasis is not clear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic comparison of the effects of prolonged sedation (8 h) with i.v. and inhalational agents on sleep homeostasis. Adult Sprague-Dawley rats (n=10) received dexmedetomidine or midazolam on separate days. Another group (n=9) received propofol or sevoflurane on separate days. A third group (n=12) received coadministration of dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane. Wakefulness (wake), slow-wave sleep (SWS), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were quantified during the 48-h post-sedation period, during which we also assessed wake-associated neural dynamics using two electroencephalographic measures: theta-high gamma phase-amplitude coupling and high gamma weighted phase-lag index.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine-, midazolam-, or propofol-induced sedation increased wake and decreased SWS and REM sleep (P<0.0001) during the 48-h post-sedation period. Sevoflurane produced no change in SWS, decreased wake for 3 h, and increased REM sleep for 6 h (P<0.02) post-sedation. Coadministration of dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane induced no change in wake (P>0.05), increased SWS for 3 h, and decreased REM sleep for 9 h (P<0.02) post-sedation. Dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and coadministration of dexmedetomidine with sevoflurane reduced wake-associated phase-amplitude coupling (P≤0.01). All sedatives except sevoflurane decreased wake-associated high gamma weighted phase-lag index (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to i.v. drugs, prolonged sevoflurane sedation produced minimal changes in sleep homeostasis and neural dynamics. Further studies are warranted to assess inhalational agents for long-term sedation and sleep homeostasis.

Neuropsychological follow-up of isoflurane sedated intensive care patients: a substudy of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled sedation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients ventilated >24 hours may have long term effects. We hypothesized that isoflurane has a better neuropsychological outcome in a one-year follow-up compared to propofol sedation.

METHODS

All 66 patients included by the coordinating center of the ISOCONDA study (EudraCT#: 2016-004551-67) took part in this substudy (DRKS00020240). A delirium test (CAM-ICU) was performed 24 hours after end of sedation. Sedation-, ventilator-, ICU- and delirium-free days within 30 days were calculated. Patients were sent five questionnaires one, three and twelve months after ICU discharge: ICU-Memory-tool (ICU-MT), Short-Form-36-Health-survey (SF-36), Posttraumatic-Stress-Scale-14 (PTSS-14), WHO-Five-Well-Being-Index (WHO-5) and Hospital-Anxiety-Depression-Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

CAM-ICU was positive in 17% of patients, however 68% showed signs of delirium during the ICU stay (no group differences). Mortality was lower after isoflurane (30-days: 1/33 versus 7/33, P=0.024; One-year: 9/33 versus 14/33, P=0.156). Isoflurane led to significantly more sedation- (median [IQR]: 28[25-29] versus 24[21-29], P=0.016), ventilator- (28[24-29] versus 22[4-28], P=0.011), ICU- (23[13-26] versus 11[0-25], P=0.044) and delirium-free days (25[21-29] versus 20[12-28], P=0.031). Return rate of questionnaires was high (87/128). In the ICU-MT, isoflurane patients recalled significantly more factual memories after one year. Generally, the psychological tests suggested a poor quality of life (SF-36), high rates of post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSS-14: 38%) and depression (WHO-5: 54%, HADS: 43%), without significant group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Isoflurane sedation leads to more delirium free days during the ICU treatment and more factual memories of the ICU stay one year after the ICU stay. However long-term outcome of ventilated ICU patients is poor, and there were no differences between isoflurane and propofol sedation.

Sedation with propofol and isoflurane differs in terms of microcirculatory parameters: A randomized animal study using dorsal skinfold chamber mouse model

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effects of sedative doses of propofol and isoflurane on microcirculation in septic mice compared to controls. Isoflurane, known for its potential as a sedation drug in bedside applications, lacks clarity regarding its impact on the microcirculation system. The hypothesis was that propofol would exert a more pronounced influence on the microvascular flow index, particularly amplified in septic conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized study was conducted from December 2020 to October 2021 involved 60 BALB/c mice, with 52 mice analyzed. Dorsal skinfold chambers were implanted, followed by intraperitoneal injections of either sterile 0.9 % saline or lipopolysaccharide for the control and sepsis groups, respectively. Both groups received propofol or isoflurane treatment for 120 min. Microcirculatory parameters were obtained via incident dark-field microscopy videos, along with the mean blood pressure and heart rate at three time points: before sedation (T0), 30 min after sedation (T30), and 120 min after sedation (T120). Endothelial glycocalyx thickness and syndecan-1 concentration were also analyzed.

RESULTS

In healthy controls, both anesthetics reduced blood pressure. However, propofol maintained microvascular flow, differing significantly from isoflurane at T120 (propofol, 2.8 ± 0.3 vs. isoflurane, 1.6 ± 0.9; P < 0.001). In the sepsis group, a similar pattern occurred at T120 without statistical significance (propofol, 1.8 ± 1.1 vs. isoflurane, 1.2 ± 0.7; P = 0.023). Syndecan-1 levels did not differ between agents, but glycocalyx thickness index was significantly lower in the isoflurane-sepsis group than propofol (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol potentially offers protective action against microvascular flow deterioration compared to isoflurane, observed in control mice. Furthermore, a lower degree of sepsis-induced glycocalyx degradation was evident with propofol compared to isoflurane.

Isoflurane, like sepsis, decreases CYP1A2 liver enzyme activity in intensive care patients: a clinical study and network model

PURPOSE

Liver function of intensive care patients is routinely monitored by static blood pathology. For specific indications, liver specific cytochrome activity may be measured by the commercially available maximum liver function capacity (LiMAx) test via quantification of the cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2) dependent C-methacetin metabolism. Sedation with the volatile anesthetic isoflurane was suspected to abrogate the correlation of LiMAx test with global liver function. We hypothesized that isoflurane has a CYP1A2-activity and LiMAx test result decreasing effect.

METHODS

In this monocentric, observational clinical study previously liver healthy intensive care patients, scheduled to be changed from propofol to isoflurane sedation, were enrolled. LiMAx testing was done before, during and after termination of isoflurane sedation.

RESULTS

The mean LiMAx value decreased during isoflurane sedation. Septic patients (n = 11) exhibited lower LiMAx values compared to non-septic patients (n = 11) at all time points. LiMAx values decreased with isoflurane from 140 ± 82 to 30 ± 34 µg kg-1 h-1 in the septic group and from 253 ± 92 to 147 ± 131 µg kg-1 h-1 in the non-septic group while laboratory markers did not imply significant hepatic impairment. Lactate increased during isoflurane inhalation without clinical consequence.

CONCLUSION

Sepsis and isoflurane have independently demonstrated an effect on reducing the hepatic CYP1A2-activity. A network model was constructed that could explain the mechanism through the influence of isoflurane on hypoxia inducible factor (HIF-1α) by upregulation of the hypoxia-inducible pathway and the downregulation of CYP1A2-activity via the ligand-inducible pathway. Thus, the increased anaerobic metabolism may result in lactate accumulation. The influence of isoflurane sedation on the validated correlation of global liver function with CYP1A2-activity measured by LiMAx testing needs to be investigated in more detail.

Inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit

The discovery and utilization of volatile anesthetics has significantly transformed surgical practices since their inception in the mid-19th century. Recently, a paradigm shift is observed as volatile anesthetics extend beyond traditional confines of the operating theatres, finding diverse applications in intensive care settings. In the dynamic landscape of intensive care, volatile anesthetics emerge as a promising avenue for addressing complex sedation requirements, managing refractory lung pathologies including acute respiratory distress syndrome and status asthmaticus, conditions of high sedative requirements including burns, high opioid or alcohol use and neurological conditions such as status epilepticus. Volatile anesthetics can be administered through either inhaled route via anesthetic machines/devices or through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuitry, providing intensivists with multiple options to tailor therapy. Furthermore, their unique pharmacokinetic profiles render them titratable and empower clinicians to individualize management with heightened accuracy, mitigating risks associated with conventional sedation modalities. Despite the amounting enthusiasm for the use of these therapies, barriers to widespread utilization include expanding equipment availability, staff familiarity and training of safe use. This article delves into the realm of applying inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit through discussing their pharmacology, administration considerations in intensive care settings, complication considerations, and listing indications and evidence of the use of volatile anesthetics in the critically ill patient population.

Guidelines for inhaled sedation in the ICU

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation is used in intensive care units (ICU) to improve comfort and tolerance during mechanical ventilation, invasive interventions, and nursing care. In recent years, the use of inhalation anaesthetics for this purpose has increased. Our objective was to obtain and summarise the best evidence on inhaled sedation in adult patients in the ICU, and use this to help physicians choose the most appropriate approach in terms of the impact of sedation on clinical outcomes and the risk-benefit of the chosen strategy.

METHODOLOGY

Given the overall lack of literature and scientific evidence on various aspects of inhaled sedation in the ICU, we decided to use a Delphi method to achieve consensus among a group of 17 expert panellists. The processes was conducted over a 12-month period between 2022 and 2023, and followed the recommendations of the CREDES guidelines.

RESULTS

The results of the Delphi survey form the basis of these 39 recommendations - 23 with a strong consensus and 15 with a weak consensus.

CONCLUSION

The use of inhaled sedation in the ICU is a reliable and appropriate option in a wide variety of clinical scenarios. However, there are numerous aspects of the technique that require further study.

Inhaled Volatiles for Status Asthmaticus, Epilepsy, and Difficult Sedation in Adult ICU and PICU: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Inhaled volatile anesthetics support management of status asthmaticus (SA), status epilepticus (SE), and difficult sedation (DS). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of using inhaled anesthetics for SA, SE, and DS in adult ICU and PICU patients.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary literature search that reported the use of inhaled anesthetics in ventilated patients with SA, SE, and DS from 1970 to 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study data points were extracted by two authors independently. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool for case studies/series, Newcastle criteria for cohort/case-control studies, and risk-of-bias framework for clinical trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Primary outcome was volatile efficacy in improving predefined clinical or physiologic endpoints. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and delivery logistics. From 4281 screened studies, the number of included studies/patients across diagnoses and patient groups were: SA (adult: 38/121, pediatric: 28/142), SE (adult: 18/37, pediatric: 5/10), and DS (adult: 21/355, pediatric: 10/90). Quality of evidence was low, consisting mainly of case reports and series. Clinical and physiologic improvement was seen within 1-2 hours of initiating volatiles, with variable efficacy across diagnoses and patient groups: SA (adult: 89-95%, pediatric: 80-97%), SE (adults: 54-100%, pediatric: 60-100%), and DS (adults: 60-90%, pediatric: 62-90%). Most common adverse events were cardiovascular, that is, hypotension and arrhythmias. Inhaled sedatives were commonly delivered using anesthesia machines for SA/SE and miniature vaporizers for DS. Few (10%) of studies reported required non-ICU personnel, and only 16% had ICU volatile delivery protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Volatile anesthetics may provide effective treatment in patients with SA, SE, and DS scenarios but the quality of evidence is low. Higher-quality powered prospective studies of the efficacy and safety of using volatile anesthetics to manage SA, SE, and DS patients are required. Education regarding inhaled anesthetics and the protocolization of their use is needed.

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.

ICU- and ventilator-free days with isoflurane or propofol as a primary sedative - A post- hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare ICU-free (ICU-FD) and ventilator-free days (VFD) in the 30 days after randomization in patients that received isoflurane or propofol without receiving the other sedative.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared inhaled isoflurane via the Sedaconda® anaesthetic conserving device (ACD) with intravenous propofol for up to 54 h (Meiser et al. 2021). After end of study treatment, continued sedation was locally determined. Patients were eligible for this post-hoc analysis only if they had available 30-day follow-up data and never converted to the other drug in the 30 days from randomization. Data on ventilator use, ICU stay, concomitant sedative use, renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine of 150 patients randomized to isoflurane and 109 of 151 patients randomized to propofol were eligible. After adjusting for potential confounders, the isoflurane group had more ICU-FD than the propofol group (17.3 vs 13.8 days, p = 0.028). VFD for the isoflurane and propofol groups were 19.8 and 18.5 respectively (p = 0.454). Other sedatives were used more frequently (p < 0.0001) and RRT started in a greater proportion of patients in the propofol group (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Isoflurane via the ACD was not associated with more VFD but with more ICU-FD and less concomitant sedative use.

Sedation for Patients with Sepsis: Towards a Personalised Approach

This article looks at the challenges of sedoanalgesia for sepsis patients, and argues for a personalised approach. Sedation is a necessary part of treatment for patients in intensive care to reduce stress and anxiety and improve long-term prognoses. Sepsis patients present particular difficulties as they are at increased risk of a wide range of complications, such as multiple organ failure, neurological dysfunction, septic shock, ARDS, abdominal compartment syndrome, vasoplegic syndrome, and myocardial dysfunction. The development of any one of these complications can cause the patient's rapid deterioration, and each has distinct implications in terms of appropriate and safe forms of sedation. In this way, the present article reviews the sedative and analgesic drugs commonly used in the ICU and, placing special emphasis on their strategic administration in sepsis patients, develops a set of proposals for sedoanalgesia aimed at improving outcomes for this group of patients. These proposals represent a move away from simplistic approaches like avoiding benzodiazepines to more "objective-guided sedation" that accounts for a patient's principal pathology, as well as any comorbidities, and takes full advantage of the therapeutic arsenal currently available to achieve personalised, patient-centred treatment goals.

A pharmacogenetic precision medicine approach to analgesia and sedation optimization in critically ill adults

Precision medicine is a growing field in critical care. Research increasingly demonstrated pharmacogenomic variability to be an important determinant of analgesic and sedative drug response in the intensive care unit (ICU). Genome-wide association and candidate gene finding studies suggest analgesic and sedatives tailored to an individual's genetic makeup, environmental adaptations, in addition to several other patient- and drug-related factors, will maximize effectiveness and help mitigate harm. However, the number of pharmacogenetic studies in ICU patients remains small and no prospective studies have been published using pharmacogenomic data to optimize analgesic or sedative therapy in critically ill patients. Current recommendations for treating ICU pain and agitation are based on controlled studies having low external validity, including the failure to consider pharmacogenomic factors affecting response. Use of a precision medicine approach to individualize pharmacotherapy focused on optimizing ICU patient comfort and safety may improve the outcomes of critically ill adults. Additionally, benefits and risks of analgesic and/or sedative therapy in an individual may be informed with large, standardized datasets. The purpose of this review was to describe a precision medicine approach focused on optimizing analgesic and sedative therapy in individual ICU patients to optimize clinical outcomes and reduce safety concerns.

Usage of Inhalative Sedative for Sedation and Treatment of Patient with Severe Brain Injury in Germany, a Nationwide Survey

Brain injured patients often need deep sedation to prevent or treat increased intracranial pressure. The mainly used IV sedatives have side effects and/or high context-sensitive half-lives, limiting their use. Inhalative sedatives have comparatively minor side effects and a brief context-sensitive half-life. Despite the theoretical advantages, evidence in this patient group is lacking. A Germany-wide survey with 21 questions was conducted to find out how widespread the use of inhaled sedation is. An invitation for the survey was sent to 226 leaders of intensive care units (ICU) treating patients with brain injury as listed by the German Society for Neurointensive Care. Eighty-nine participants answered the questionnaire, but not all items were responded to, which resulted in different absolute counts. Most of them (88%) were university or high-level hospital ICU leaders and (67%) were leaders of specialized neuro-ICUs. Of these, 53/81 (65%) use inhalative sedation, and of the remaining 28, 17 reported interest in using this kind of sedation. Isoflurane is used by 43/53 (81%), sevoflurane by 15/53 (28%), and desflurane by 2. Hypotension and mydriasis are the most common reported side effects (25%). The presented survey showed that inhalative sedatives were used in a significant number of intensive care units in Germany to treat severely brain-injured patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Sedation is fundamental to the management of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Its indications in the ICU are vast, including the facilitating of mechanical ventilation, permitting invasive procedures, and managing anxiety and agitation. Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in ICU patients using dedicated devices/systems. Its use may reduce adverse events and improve ICU outcomes compared to conventional intravenous (IV) sedation in the ICU. This review examined the effectiveness of inhalational sedation using the anesthetic conserving device (ACD) compared to standard IV sedation for adult patients in ICU and highlights the technical aspects of its functioning.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Sage Journals databases using the terms "anesthetic conserving device," "Anaconda," "sedation" and "intensive care unit" in randomized clinical studies that were performed between 2012 and 2022 and compared volatile sedation using an ACD with IV sedation in terms of time to extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time compared to IV sedation (midazolam or propofol).

CONCLUSION

Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. More clinical trials that assess additional clinical outcomes on a large scale are needed.

Effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation of critically ill patients with inhaled anaesthetics may reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation, and ICU length of stay compared with intravenous (i.v.) sedatives. However, the impact of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in this population is unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarise the effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for case series, retrospective, and prospective studies in critically ill adults sedated with inhaled anaesthetics. Outcomes included delirium, psychomotor and neurological recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, ICU memories, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and instruments used for assessment.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in distinct populations of post-cardiac arrest survivors (n=4), postoperative noncardiac patients (n=3), postoperative cardiac patients (n=2), and mixed medical-surgical patients (n=4). Eight studies reported delirium incidence, two neurological recovery, and two ICU memories. One study reported on psychomotor recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. A meta-analysis of five trials found no difference in delirium incidence between inhaled and i.v. sedatives (relative risk 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.54]). Compared with i.v. sedatives, inhaled anaesthetics were associated with fewer hallucinations and faster psychomotor recovery but no differences in other outcomes. There was heterogeneity in the instruments used and timing of these assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence available, there is no difference in cognitive and psychiatric outcomes between adults exposed to volatile sedation or intravenous sedation in the ICU. Future studies should incorporate outcome assessment with validated tools during and after hospital stay.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42021236455.

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

Introduction

In patients with severe aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) deep sedation is often used early in the course of the disease in order to control brain edema formation and thus intracranial hypertension. However, some patients do not reach an adequate sedation depth despite high doses of common intravenous sedatives. Balanced sedation protocols incorporating low-dose volatile isoflurane administration might improve insufficient sedation depth in these patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed ICU patients with severe aneurysmal SAH who received isoflurane in addition to intravenous anesthetics in order to improve insufficient sedation depth. Routinely recorded data from neuromonitoring, laboratory and hemodynamic parameters were compared before and up to 6 days after initiation of isoflurane.

Results

Sedation depth measured using the bispectral index improved in thirty-six SAH patients (-15.16; p = 0.005) who received additional isoflurane for a mean period of 9.73 ± 7.56 days. Initiation of isoflurane sedation caused a decline in mean arterial pressure (-4.67 mmHg; p = 0.014) and cerebral perfusion pressure (-4.21 mmHg; p = 0.013) which had to be balanced by increased doses of vasopressors. Patients required increased minute ventilation in order to adjust for the increase in PaCO₂ (+2.90 mmHg; p < 0.001). We did not detect significant increases in mean intracranial pressure. However, isoflurane therapy had to be terminated prematurely in 25% of the patients after a median of 30 h due to episodes of intracranial hypertension or refractory hypercapnia.

Discussion

A balanced sedation protocol including isoflurane is feasible for SAH patients experiencing inadequately shallow sedation. However, therapy should be restricted to patients without impaired lung function, hemodynamic instability and impending intracranial hypertension.

Sedation with Sevoflurane versus Propofol in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) led to intensive care units (ICUs) collapse. Amalgams of sedative agents (including volatile anesthetics) were used due to the clinical shortage of intravenous drugs (mainly propofol and midazolam).

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized 1:1, controlled clinical trial was designed to compare sedation using propofol and sevoflurane in patients with ARDS associated with COVID-19 infection in terms of oxygenation and mortality.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 17 patients (10 in the propofol arm and 7 in the sevoflurane arm) showed a trend toward PaO₂/FiO₂ improvement and the sevoflurane arm's superiority in decreasing the likelihood of death (no statistical significance was found).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous agents are the most-used sedative agents in Spain, even though volatile anesthetics, such as sevoflurane and isoflurane, have shown beneficial effects in many clinical conditions. Growing evidence demonstrates the safety and potential benefits of using volatile anesthetics in critical situations.

Ventilatory Effects of Isoflurane Sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-S versus ACD-L: A Substudy of a Randomized Trial

Devices used to deliver inhaled sedation increase dead space ventilation. We therefore compared ventilatory effects among isoflurane sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-S (internal volume: 50 mL), isoflurane sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-L (100 mL), and propofol sedation with standard mechanical ventilation with heat and moisture exchangers (HME). This is a substudy of a randomized trial that compared inhaled isoflurane sedation via the ACD-S or ACD-L to intravenous propofol sedation in 301 intensive care patients. Data from the first 24 h after study inclusion were analyzed using linear mixed models. Primary outcome was minute ventilation. Secondary outcomes were tidal volume, respiratory rate, arterial carbon dioxide pressure, and isoflurane consumption. In total, 151 patients were randomized to propofol and 150 to isoflurane sedation; 64 patients received isoflurane via the ACD-S and 86 patients via the ACD-L. While use of the ACD-L was associated with higher minute ventilation (average difference (95% confidence interval): 1.3 (0.7, 1.8) L/min, p < 0.001), higher tidal volumes (44 (16, 72) mL, p = 0.002), higher respiratory rates (1.2 (0.1, 2.2) breaths/min, p = 0.025), and higher arterial carbon dioxide pressures (3.4 (1.2, 5.6) mmHg, p = 0.002), use of the ACD-S did not significantly affect ventilation compared to standard mechanical ventilation and sedation. Isoflurane consumption was slightly less with the ACD-L compared to the ACD-S (-0.7 (-1.3, 0.1) mL/h, p = 0.022). The Sedaconda ACD-S compared to the ACD-L is associated with reduced minute ventilation and does not significantly affect ventilation compared to a standard mechanical ventilation and sedation setting. The smaller ACD-S is therefore the device of choice to minimize impact on ventilation, especially in patients with a limited ability to compensate (e.g., COPD patients). Volatile anesthetic consumption is slightly higher with the ACD-S compared to the ACD-L.

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

OBJECTIVE

Volatile sedation after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) promises several advantages, but there are still concerns regarding intracranial hypertension due to vasodilatory effects. We prospectively analyzed cerebral parameters during the switch from intravenous to volatile sedation with isoflurane in patients with poor-grade (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grade 4-5) aSAH.

METHODS

Eleven patients were included in this prospective observational study. Between day 3 and 5 after admission, intravenous sedation was switched to isoflurane using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device (Sedana Medical, Danderyd, Sweden). Intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), brain tissue oxygenation (PBrO2), cerebral mean flow velocities (MFVs; transcranial Doppler ultrasound) and regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2, near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring), as well as cardiopulmonary parameters were assessed before and after the sedation switch (-12 to +12 hours). Additionally, perfusion computed tomography data during intravenous and volatile sedation were analyzed retrospectively for changes in cerebral blood flow.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in mean ICP, CPP, and PBrO2 after the sedation switch to isoflurane. Mean rSO2 showed a non-significant trend towards higher values, and mean MFV in the middle cerebral arteries increased significantly after the initiation of volatile sedation. Isoflurane sedation resulted in a significantly increased norepinephrine administration. Despite an increase in mean inspiratory pressure, we observed a significant increase in mean partial arterial pressure of carbon dioxide.

CONCLUSIONS

Isoflurane sedation does not compromise ICP or cerebral oxygenation in poor-grade aSAH patients, but the significant depression of CPP could limit the use of volatiles in case of hemodynamic instability or high vasopressor demand.

Prolonged sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to intravenous sedation in critically ill patients - A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Volatile anesthetics are used more commonly for sedation in the intensive-care-unit (ICU). However, evidence for long-term use remains low. We therefore conducted a randomized-controlled trial comparing sevoflurane with intravenous sedation with particular focus on efficacy and safety.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized-controlled phase-IIb monocentric clinical-trial ICU patients requiring at least 48 h of sedation were randomized to receive sevoflurane (S) or propofol/midazolam (P). Sedation quality was monitored using the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale. Following termination of sedation, the time to spontaneous breathing and extubation, opioid consumption, hemodynamics, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

79 patients were eligible to randomization. Sedation quality was comparable between sevoflurane (n = 39) and propofol (n = 40). However, the use of sevoflurane lead to a reduction in time to spontaneous breathing (26 min vs. 375 min, P < 0.001). Patients sedated with propofol had lower opioid requirements (remifentanil:400 μg/h vs. 500 μg/h, P = 0.007; sufentanil:40 μg/h vs. 30 μg/h, P = 0.007) while hemodynamics, LOS or the occurrence of adverse events did not differ.

CONCLUSION

ICU patients sedated with sevoflurane >48 h may return to spontaneous breathing faster, while the quality of sedation is comparable to a propofol-based sedation regime. Sevoflurane might be considered to be safe for long-term sedation in this patient population, while being non-inferior compared to propofol.

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.

Increasing the reflection efficiency of the Sedaconda ACD-S by heating and cooling the anaesthetic reflector: a bench study using a test lung

BACKGROUND

As volatile anaesthetic gases contribute to global warming, improving the efficiency of their delivery can reduce their environmental impact. This can be achieved by rebreathing from a circle system, but also by anaesthetic reflection with an open intensive care ventilator. We investigated whether the efficiency of such a reflection system could be increased by warming the reflector during inspiration and cooling it during expiration (thermocycling).

METHODS

The Sedaconda-ACD-S (Sedana Medical, Danderyd, Sweden) was connected between an intensive care ventilator and a test lung. Liquid isoflurane was infused into the device at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0 mL/h; ventilator settings were 500 mL tidal volume, 12 bpm, 21% oxygen. Isoflurane concentrations were measured inside the test lung after equilibration. Thermocycling was achieved by heating the breathing gas in the inspiratory hose to 37 °C via a heated humidifier without water. Breathing gas expired from the test lung was cooled to 14 °C before reaching the ACD-S. In the test lung, body temperature pressure saturated conditions prevailed. Isoflurane concentrations and reflective efficiency were compared between thermocycling and control conditions.

RESULTS

With thermocycling higher isoflurane concentrations in the test lung were measured for all infusion rates studied. Interpolation of data showed that for achieving 0.4 (0.6) Vol% isoflurane, the infusion rate can be reduced from 1.2 to 0.7 (2.0 to 1.2) mL/h or else to 56% (58%) of control.

CONCLUSION

Thermocycling of the anaesthetic gas considerably increases the efficiency of the anaesthetic reflector and reduces anaesthetic consumption by almost half in a test lung model. Given that cooling can be miniaturized, this method carries a potential for further saving anaesthetics in clinical practice in the operating theatre as well as for inhaled sedation in the ICU.

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.

The Future of Cardiothoracic Surgical Critical Care Medicine as a Medical Science: A Call to Action

Cardiothoracic surgical critical care medicine (CT-CCM) is a medical discipline centered on the perioperative care of diverse groups of patients. With an aging demographic and an increase in burden of chronic diseases the utilization of cardiothoracic surgical critical care units is likely to escalate in the coming decades. Given these projections, it is important to assess the state of cardiothoracic surgical intensive care, to develop goals and objectives for the future, and to identify knowledge gaps in need of scientific inquiry. This two-part review concentrates on CT-CCM as its own subspeciality of critical care and cardiothoracic surgery and provides aspirational goals for its practitioners and scientists. In part one, a list of guiding principles and a call-to-action agenda geared towards growth and promotion of CT-CCM are offered. In part two, an evaluation of selected scientific data is performed, identifying gaps in CT-CCM knowledge, and recommending direction to future scientific endeavors.

Inhaled Sedation in Patients with COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An International Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the shortage of intravenous sedatives has led to renewed interest in inhaled sedation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that inhaled sedation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS patients.

METHODS

Retrospective international study including mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS who required sedation and were admitted to 10 European and US intensive care units. The primary endpoint of ventilator-free days through day 28 was analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, before and after adjustment for site, clinically relevant covariates determined according to the univariate results, and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients were enrolled, 78 of whom died within 28 days. The number of ventilator-free days through day 28 did not differ significantly between the patients who received inhaled sedation for at least 24 h (n = 111) and those who received intravenous sedation only (n = 85), with medians of 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-8) and 0 (IQR 0-17), respectively (odds ratio for having zero ventilator-free days through day 28, 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.92, p = 0.10). The incidence rate ratio for the number of ventilator-free days through day 28 if not 0 was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.84-1.52, p = 0.40). Similar results were found after multivariable adjustment and propensity matching.

CONCLUSION

The use of inhaled sedation in COVID-19 ARDS was not associated with the number of ventilator-free days through day 28.

Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines.

METHODS

An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) to inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO₂), PaO₂/FiO₂, of ≤ 300 mmHg at baseline were included (n = 162). The primary endpoint was the change in PaO₂/FiO₂ between baseline and the end of study sedation. A subgroup analysis in patients with PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg was performed (n = 82).

RESULTS

Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO₂/FiO₂ was 210 ± 79 mmHg in the isoflurane group (n = 41) and 185 ± 87 mmHg in the propofol group (n = 44; p = 0.411). In the subgroup of patients with PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg, PaO₂/FiO₂ increase between baseline and end of study sedation was 152 ± 33 to 186 ± 54 mmHg for isoflurane (n = 37), and 150 ± 38 to 214 ± 85 mmHg for propofol (n = 45; p = 0.029). On day seven, PaO₂/FiO₂ was 198 ± 69 mmHg in patients randomized to isoflurane (n = 20) and 174 ± 106 mmHg in patients randomized to propofol (n = 20; p = 0.933). Both for the whole study population and for the subgroup with PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg, no significant between-group differences were observed for PaCO₂, pH and tidal volume as well as 30-day mortality and ventilator-free days alive.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency's EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results.

Increased Respiratory Drive after Prolonged Isoflurane Sedation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Low-dose isoflurane stimulates spontaneous breathing. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that isoflurane compared to propofol sedation for at least 48 h is associated with increased respiratory drive in intensive care patients after sedation stop. All patients in our intensive care unit receiving at least 48 h of isoflurane or propofol sedation in 2019 were included. The primary outcome was increased respiratory drive over 72 h after sedation stop, defined as an arterial carbon dioxide pressure below 35 mmHg and a base excess more than −2 mmol/L. Secondary outcomes were acid–base balance and ventilatory parameters. We analyzed 64 patients, 23 patients sedated with isoflurane and 41 patients sedated with propofol. Patients sedated with isoflurane were about three times as likely to show increased respiratory drive after sedation stop than those sedated with propofol: adjusted risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.9 [1.3, 6.5], p = 0.010. After sedation stop, tidal volumes were significantly greater and arterial carbon dioxide partial pressures were significantly lower, while respiratory rates did not differ in isoflurane versus propofol-sedated patients. In conclusion, prolonged isoflurane use in intensive care patients is associated with increased respiratory drive after sedation stop. Beneficial effects of isoflurane sedation on respiratory drive may, thus, extend beyond the actual period of sedation.

Inhaled sedation in the intensive care unit

Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in intensive care unit (ICU) patients through dedicated vaporisers and scavenging systems. Such a sedation strategy requires specific equipment and adequate training of ICU teams. Isoflurane and sevoflurane have ideal pharmacological properties that allow efficient, well-tolerated, and titratable light-to-deep sedation. In addition to their function as sedative agents, these molecules may have clinical benefits that could be especially relevant to ICU patients. Our goal was to summarise the pharmacological basis and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation, review the available evidence supporting inhaled sedation as a viable alternative to intravenous sedation, and discuss the remaining areas of uncertainty and future perspectives of development.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

Inhaled Sedation for Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Volatile anesthetics were used as sedative agents in COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) invasively ventilated patients for their potentially beneficial pharmacological effects and due to the temporary shortages of intravenous agents during the pandemic crisis. Methods: Online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial) and the “clinicaltrials.gov” website were searched for studies reporting the use of isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane. Results: We identified three manuscripts describing the beneficial effects of isoflurane on 41 COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Germany (n = 2) and in the USA (n = 1), in terms of reduction in the use of opioids and other sedatives. We also found a case report of two patients with transient nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, which started after 6 and 8 days of sevoflurane sedation. We identified two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 92 patients overall), two observational studies (238 patients) on the use of volatile anesthetics in COVID-19 patients that were completed but not yet published, and one RCT interrupted for a low recruitment ratio (19 patients) and thus not published. We also identified five ongoing RCTs on the use of inhaled sedation in ARDS, which are also likely to be recruiting COVID-19 patients and which have currently enrolled a total of >1643 patients. Conclusion: Isoflurane was the most frequently used volatile agent in COVID-19 patients and allowed a reduction in the use of other sedative and analgesic drugs. Randomized evidence is building up and will be useful to confirm or challenge these findings.