Sedation for ventilation in the critically ill. A role for isoflurane?

Chemotherapy: a double-edged sword in cancer treatment

Chemotherapy is a well-known and effective treatment for different cancers; unfortunately, it has not been as efficient in the eradication of all cancer cells as been expected. The mechanism of this failure was not fully clarified, yet. Meanwhile, alterations in the physiologic conditions of the tumor microenvironment (TME) were suggested as one of the underlying possibilities. Chemotherapy drugs can activate multiple signaling pathways and augment the secretion of inflammatory mediators. Inflammation may show two opposite roles in the TME. On the one hand, inflammation, as an innate immune response, tries to suppress tumor growth but on the other hand, it might be not powerful enough to eradicate the cancer cells and even it can provide appropriate conditions for cancer promotion and relapse as well. Therefore, the administration of mild anti-inflammatory drugs during chemotherapy might result in more successful clinical results. Here, we will review and discuss this hypothesis. Most chemotherapy agents are triggers of inflammation in the tumor microenvironment through inducing the production of senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) molecules. Some chemotherapy agents can induce systematic inflammation by provoking TLR4 signaling or triggering IL-1B secretion through the inflammasome pathway. NF-kB and MAPK are key signaling pathways of inflammation and could be activated by several chemotherapy drugs. Furthermore, inflammation can play a key role in cancer development, metastasis and exacerbation.

Use of xenon as a sedative for patients receiving critical care

OBJECTIVE

Many sedative regimens are used in the intensive care setting, but none are wholly without adverse effect. Xenon is a noble gas with sedative and analgesic properties. It has been used successfully as a general anesthetic and has many desirable properties, not least of which is a minimal effect on the myocardium. In theory, xenon may provide sedation without adverse effect for certain groups of critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using xenon as an intensive care sedative.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized study.

SETTING

Tertiary-level intensive care unit.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-one patients admitted to an intensive care unit following elective thoracic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

A standard intensive care sedation regimen (intravenous propofol at 0-5 mg.kg-1.hr-1 and alfentanil 30 microg.kg-1.hr-1) was compared with a xenon sedation regimen delivered using a novel bellows-in-bottle delivery system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Each sedative regimen was continued for 8 hrs. The hemodynamic effects, additional analgesic requirements, recovery from sedation, and effect on hematological and biochemical variables were compared for the two sedation regimens. All patients were successfully sedated during the xenon regimen. The mean +/- SD end-tidal xenon concentration required to provide sedation throughout the duration of the study was 28 +/- 9.0% (range, 9-62%). Arterial systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures showed a greater tendency for negative gradients in patients receiving the propofol regimen (p <.05, p <.1, and p <.01, respectively). Recovery following xenon was significantly faster than from the standard sedation regimen (p <.0001). Hematological and biochemical laboratory markers were within normal clinical limits in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Xenon provided satisfactory sedation in our group of patients. It was well tolerated with minimal hemodynamic effect. Recovery from this agent is extremely rapid. We have demonstrated the feasibility of using xenon within the critical care setting, without adverse effect.

A prospective randomised pilot study of sedation regimens in a general ICU population: a reality-based medicine study

BACKGROUND: For logistical reasons sedation studies are often carried out in elective surgical patients and the results extrapolated to the general intensive care unit (ICU) population. We question the validity of this approach. We compared the two sedation regimens used in our general ICU in a trial structured to mimic clinical practice as closely as possible. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomised to intermittent diazepam or continuous midazolam and sedation monitored with hourly sedation scores; 31 patients completed the study. Scores indicating undersedation were more common with diazepam (P <0.01); overall adequate sedation midazolam 64.7%, diazepam 35.7% (P =0.21). No patient exhibited inappropriately prolonged sedation. Cost was: midazolam AUS$1.98/h; diazepam AUS$0.06/h. CONCLUSION: Both regimens produced rapid onset of acceptable sedation but undersedation appeared more common with the cheaper diazepam regimen. At least 140 patients should be studied to provide evidence applicable to the general ICU population. Used alone, a sedation score may be an inappropriate outcome measure for a sedation trial.

Comparative study of propofol versus midazolam in the sedation of critically ill patients: results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, characteristics, duration of action, hemodynamic and biochemical effects, and side effects of propofol and midazolam used for continuous intravenous sedation of ventilated critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, nonblinded study.

SETTING

Nine Spanish general intensive care units (ICUs).

PATIENTS

Ninety-eight patients admitted to the ICU who were mechanically ventilated and required sedation for a minimum of 48 hrs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol or midazolam was used for induction and maintenance of continuous intravenous sedation for a maximum of 5 days. The effectiveness of those two regimens was assessed according to their effects on ventilatory management and the presence of agitation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In 93% of the patients studied, there was a medical cause necessitating mechanical ventilation. The mean (+/-SD) duration of sedation was 81 +/- 25 hrs and 88 +/- 27 hrs for the propofol and midazolam groups, respectively. The induction dose was 2.24 +/- 0.43 mg/kg over 318 +/- 363 secs for propofol, and 0.22 +/-0.07 mg/kg over 33 +/-29 secs for midazolam. The maintenance dose was 2.8 +/-1.1 mg/kg/hr for propofol and 0.14 +/- 0.10 mg/kg/hr for midazolam. There was no difference regarding the opiate and muscle relaxant requirements between the two groups. Sedation with propofol was more effective in achieving patient-ventilator synchrony than that with midazolam after the first hour of treatment (p < .01). Patients sedated with propofol awoke more rapidly and with less variability that those patients sedated with midazolam (23 +/- 16 mins vs. 137 +/- 185 mins, respectively, p < .05), particularly in those patients requiring deep sedation (27 +/- 16 mins vs. 237 +/- 222 mins, respectively, p < .01). No hemodynamic or biochemical changes were detected in any of the treatment groups. During induction, five patients in the propofol group and two patients in the midazolam group had hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of critically ill patients, propofol is an effective and safe alternative for sedation, with some advantages, such as short duration of action and high effectiveness over the conventional regimen with benzodiazepines and opiates.