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

High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients-A monocentric observational study

BACKGROUND

Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used.

RESULTS

In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature.

CONCLUSION

The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.

A comparison of dexmedetomidine sedation with and without midazolam for dental implant surgery

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has a minimal respiratory depressive effect, which is beneficial for dentistry; however, it has the disadvantage of permitting an intraoperative arousal response such that the patient appears to be suddenly no longer sedated, and it has a variable amnestic effect. Since midazolam (MDZ) in an appropriate dose has a profound amnesic effect, we investigated whether additional MDZ compensates for the disadvantage of DEX and enables a better quality of sedation. Forty-three subjects were randomly divided into 4 groups. In group 1, MDZ (0.02 mg/kg) was administered intravenously, followed by a dose of 0.01 mg/kg every 45 minutes. After the first dose of MDZ, preloading with DEX (2 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes) was started and maintained with a dosage of 0.5 µg/kg/h. In group 2, MDZ was infused in the same manner as in group 1, followed by preloading with DEX (1 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes) and maintenance (0.3 µg/kg/h). In group 3, MDZ was infused 0.03 mg/kg, and a dose of 0.01 mg/kg was given every 30 minutes; DEX was administered at the same as in group 2. In group 4, DEX was infused using the same method as in group 1 without MDZ. The sedation levels, amnesia, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. Group 2 had a lower sedation level and a poor evaluation during the first half of the operation. Group 4 did not exhibit an amnesic effect at the beginning of the operation. An evaluation of the degree of patient satisfaction did not reveal any differences among the groups. Optimal sedation was achieved through the combined use of MDZ (0.02 mg/kg with the addition of 0.01 mg/kg every 45 minutes) and DEX (2 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h).

Cardiovascular manifestations of sedatives and analgesics in the critical care unit

There are numerous sedatives and analgesics used in critical care medicine today; these medications are used on critically ill patients, many of whom have heart disease, including coronary artery disease or congestive heart failure. The purpose of this review is to recognize the effects of these medications on the heart. Studies that evaluated the effects of sedatives and analgesics on normal individuals or on those with heart disease were reviewed. Current choices for sustained sedation in the critically ill include the benzodiazepines, morphine, propofol, and etomidate. Each of these medications has their particular advantages and disadvantages. Benzodiazepines provide the greatest amnesia and cardiovascular safety but they can cause significant hypotension in the hemodynamically unstable patient. Morphine provides analgesia and cardioprotective activity after ischemia, although the large observational study CRUSADE showed increased mortality rate in those patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction who received morphine. Propofol is the most easily titratable drug with cardioprotective features, but its use must be accompanied with great attention to possible development of propofol infusion syndrome, which is a deadly disease, especially in patients with head injury and those with septic shock receiving vasopressors. Etomidate has a rapid onset effect and short period of action with great hemodynamic stability even in patients with shock and hypovolemia, but the incidence of adrenal insufficiency during infusion, not bolus doses, may cause deterioration in the circulatory stability. In conclusion, the sedatives and analgesics mentioned here have characteristics that give them a cardiovascular safety profile useful in critically ill patients. However, use of these drugs on an individual basis is dependent on each agent's safety and efficacy.

Analgo-sedation of patients with burns outside the operating room

Following the initial resuscitation of burn patients, the pain experienced may be divided into a 'background' pain and a 'breakthrough' pain associated with painful procedures. While background pain may be treated with intravenous opioids via continuous infusion or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and/or less potent oral opioids, breakthrough pain may be treated with a variety of interventions. The aim is to reduce patient anxiety, improve analgesia and ensure immobilization when required. Untreated pain and improper sedation may result in psychological distress such as post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or delirium. This review summarizes recent developments and current techniques in sedation and analgesia in non-intubated adult burn patients during painful procedures performed outside the operating room (e.g. staple removal, wound-dressing, bathing). Current techniques of sedation and analgesia include different approaches, from a slight increase in background pain therapy (e.g. morphine PCA) to PCA with rapid-onset opioids, to multimodal drug combinations, nitrous oxide, regional blocks, or non-pharmacological approaches such as hypnosis and virtual reality. The most reliable way to administer drugs is intravenously. Fast-acting opioids can be combined with ketamine, propofol or benzodiazepines. Adjuvant drugs such as clonidine or NSAIDs and paracetamol (acetaminophen) have also been used. Patients receiving ketamine will usually maintain spontaneous breathing. This is an important feature in patients who are continuously turned during wound dressing procedures and where analgo-sedation is often performed by practitioners who are not specialists in anaesthesiology. Drugs are given in small boluses or by patient-controlled sedation, which is titrated to effect, according to sedation and pain scales. Patient-controlled infusion with propofol has also been used. However, we must bear in mind that burn patients often show an altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response to drugs as a result of altered haemodynamics, protein binding and/or increased extracellular fluid volume, and possible changes in glomerular filtration. Because sedation and analgesia can range from minimal sedation (anxiolysis) to general anaesthesia, sedative and analgesic agents should always be administered by designated trained practitioners and not by the person performing the procedure. At least one individual who is capable of establishing a patent airway and positive pressure ventilation, as well as someone who can call for additional assistance, should always be present whenever analgo-sedation is administered. Oxygen should be routinely delivered during sedation. Blood pressure and continuous ECG monitoring should be carried out whenever possible, even if a patient is undergoing bathing or other procedures that may limit monitoring of vital pulse-oximetry parameters.

Sedation in neurointensive care: advances in understanding and practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the rationale and the pharmacologic options for sedating neurointensive care patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sedation is a fundamental element in the neurointensive care unit. Even if the sedative strategy in the neurointensive care unit shares the same general aims with intensive care, the characteristics of the patients in the neurointensive care unit pose other unique challenges and some specific indications. The primary aim of neurointensive care is to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure, to control intracranial pressure, and to maintain an adequate mean arterial pressure. Reducing the brain's metabolic demand is an important treatment strategy, and analgesic and sedative agents are used to prevent undesirable increases in intracranial pressure. There are many different pharmacologic agents available, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

SUMMARY

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic effects of the available sedatives used in neurointensive care patients are reviewed.