Halogenated anesthetics vs intravenous hypnotics for short and long term sedation in the intensive care unit: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively assess peer-reviewed studies using volatile (VA) or intravenous (i/v) anesthetics for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs), with the hypothesis that the type of sedation may have an impact on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials.

SETTING

ICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill and postoperative patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Studies comparing VA versus i/v anesthetics used in the ICU settings were independently systematically searched. Finally, 15 studies (1520 patients of predominantly surgical profile needed VA sedation for less than 96h) were included. VA had no impact on all-cause mortality (very low quality of evidence, Odds Ratio=0.82 [0.60-1.12], p=0.20). However, VA were associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.03) and increase in ventilator-free days (p<0.001). VA also reduced postoperative levels of cardiac troponin (24h), time to extubation (p<0.001) and awakening (p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, volatile sedation vs propofol caused the increase in ventilator-free days, the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation and the troponin release in medical or surgical ICU patients, while in surgical ICU patients the time to awakening was shortened.

The effects of intravenous lignocaine on depth of anaesthesia and intraoperative haemodynamics during open radical prostatectomy

Background

Lignocaine is a local anaesthetic agent, which is also commonly used as a perioperative analgesic adjunct to accelerate rehabilitation and enhance recovery after surgery. Lignocaine’s systemic effects on intraoperative haemodynamics and volatile anaesthetic requirements are not well explored. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of intravenous lignocaine on intraoperative volatile agent requirements and haemodynamics in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Methods

We performed an analysis of 76 participants who underwent elective open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patients received lignocaine (1.5 mg/kg loading dose) followed by an infusion (1.5 mg/kg/h) for the duration of surgery, or saline at an equivalent rate. The aims of the study were to evaluate the end-tidal sevoflurane concentration required to maintain a bispectral index of between 40 and 60. Measurements included intraoperative blood pressure, heart rate, and the volume of intravenous fluids and dosage of vasoactive medications administered.

Results

The average end-tidal sevoflurane concentration was lower in the Lignocaine group compared to saline [1.49% (SD: 0.32) vs. 1.89% (SD: 0.29); 95% CI 0.26–0.5, p < 0.001]. In the Lignocaine group, the average mean arterial pressure was 80.3 mmHg (SD: 4.9) compared to 85.1 mmHg (SD: 5.4) in the Saline group (95% CI 2.4–7.1, p < 0.001). Systolic blood pressure was also lower in the Lignocaine group: 121.7 mmHg (SD: 6.1) vs. 128.0 mmHg (SD: 6.4) in the Saline group; 95% CI 3.5–9.2, p < 0.001, as was the mean heart rate [Lignocaine group: 74.9 beats/min (SD: 1.8) vs. 81.5 beats/min (SD: 1.7) in the Saline group, 95% CI 4.1–9.1, p < 0.001]. Maintenance fluid requirements were higher in the Lignocaine group: 3281.1 mL (SD: 1094.6) vs. 2552.6 mL (SD: 1173.5) in the Saline group, 95% CI 206–1251, p = 0.007. There were no differences in the use of vasoactive drugs.

Conclusions

Intravenous lignocaine reduces volatile anaesthetic requirements and lowers blood pressure and heart rate in patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy.

Very Long-Chain Acyl-Coenzyme A Dehydrogenase Deficiency and Perioperative Management in Adult Patients

Surgery and anesthesia pose a threat to patients with very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (VLCADD), because prolonged fasting, stress, and pain are known risk factors for the induction of metabolic derangement. The optimal perioperative management in these patients is unknown and the use of volatile agents and agents dissolved in fatty acids has been related to postoperative metabolic complications. However, the occurrence of metabolic derangement is multifactorial and depends, amongst others, on the severity of the mutation and residual enzyme activity. Current guidelines suggest avoiding both volatile anesthetics as well as propofol, which seriously limits the options for providing safe anesthesia. Therefore, we reviewed the available literature on the perioperative management of patients with VLCADD. We concluded that the use of some medications, such as volatile anesthetics, in patients with VLCADD might be wrongfully avoided and could in fact prevent metabolic derangement by the adequate suppression of pain and stress during surgery. We will illustrate this with a case report of an adult VLCADD patient undergoing minor surgery. Besides the use of remifentanil, anesthesia was uneventfully maintained with the use of sevoflurane, a volatile agent, and continuous glucose infusion. The patient was monitored with a continuous glucose meter and creatinine kinase measurements.