PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (608912)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Current practices of mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation in Indian ICUs: A survey conducted by the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine 
Background and Aim:
Use of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blocking agents is widely practiced in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Our aim is to study the current practice patterns related to mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation (MARS) to help in standardizing best practices in these areas in the ICU.
Materials and Methods:
A web-based nationwide survey involving physicians of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) and the Indian Society of Anesthesiologists (ISA) was carried out. A questionnaire included questions on demographics, assessment scales for delirium, sedation and pain, as also the pharmacological agents and the practice methods.
Results:
Most ICUs function in a semi-closed model. Midazolam (94.99%) and Fentanyl (47.04%) were the most common sedative and analgesic agents used, respectively. Vecuronium was the preferred neuromuscular agent. Monitoring of sedation, analgesia and delirium in the ICU. Ramsay's Sedation Scale (56.1%) and Visual Analogue Scale (48.07%) were the preferred sedation and pain scales, respectively. CAM (Confusion Assessment Method)-ICU was the most preferred method of delirium assessment. Haloperidol was the most commonly used agent for delirium. Majority of the respondents were aware of the benefit of early mobilization, but lack of support staff and safety concerns were the main obstacles to its implementation.
Conclusion:
The results of the survey suggest that compliance with existing guidelines is low. Benzodiazepines still remain the predominant ICU sedative. The recommended practice of giving analgesia before sedation is almost non-existent. Delirium remains an underrecognized entity. Monitoring of sedation levels, analgesia and delirium is low and validated and recommended scales for the same are rarely used. Although awareness of the benefits of early mobilization are high, the implementation is low.
doi:10.4103/0972-5229.140146
PMCID: PMC4166873  PMID: 25249742
Analgesia; early mobilization; muscle relaxants; sedation
2.  Changes in sedation management in German intensive care units between 2002 and 2006: a national follow-up survey 
Critical Care  2007;11(6):R124.
Background
The aim of this study, conducted in 2006, was to find out whether changes in sedation management in German intensive care units took place in comparison with our survey from 2002.
Methods
We conducted a follow-up survey with a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional multi-center design. A postal survey was sent between January and May 2006, up to four times, to the same 269 hospitals that participated in our first survey in 2002. The same questionnaire as in 2002 was used with a few additional questions.
Results
Two hundred fourteen (82%) hospitals replied. Sixty-seven percent of the hospitals carried out changes in sedation management since the 2002 survey. Reasons for changes were published literature (46%), national guidelines (29%), and scientific lectures (32%). Sedation protocols (8% versus 52%) and a sedation scale (21% versus 46%) were used significantly more frequently. During sedation periods of up to 24 hours, significantly less midazolam was used (46% versus 35%). In comparison to 2002, sufentanil and epidural analgesia were used much more frequently in all phases of sedation, and fentanyl more rarely. For periods of greater than 72 hours, remifentanil was used more often. A daily sedation break was introduced by 34% of the hospitals, and a pain scale by 21%.
Conclusion
The increased implementation of protocols and scoring systems for the measurement of sedation depth and analgesia, a daily sedation break, and the use of more short-acting analgesics and sedatives account for more patient-oriented analgesia and sedation in 2006 compared with 2002.
doi:10.1186/cc6189
PMCID: PMC2246220  PMID: 18062820
3.  Respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in the surgical patient requiring intensive care 
Critical Care  2000;4(5):302-308.
The respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine were retrospectively examined in 33 postsurgical patients involved in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Morphine requirements were reduced by over 50% in patients receiving dexmedetomidine. There were no differences in respiratory rates, oxygen saturations, arterial pH and arterial partial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) between the groups. Interestingly the arterial partial oxygen tension (PaO2) : fractional inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratios were statistically significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group. Dexmedetomidine provides important postsurgical analgesia and appears to have no clinically important adverse effects on respiration in the surgical patient who requires intensive care.
Introduction:
The α2-agonist dexmedetomidine is a new class of sedative drug that is being investigated for use in ICU settings. It is an effective agent for the management of sedation and analgesia after cardiac, general, orthopaedic, head and neck, oncological and vascular surgery in the ICU [1]. Cardiovascular stability was demonstrated, with significant reductions in rate-pressure product during sedation and over the extubation period.
Dexmedetomidine possesses several properties that may additionally benefit those critically ill patients who require sedation. In spontaneously breathing volunteers, intravenous dexmedetomidine caused marked sedation with only mild reductions in resting ventilation at higher doses [2]. Dexmedetomidine reduces the haemodynamic response to intubation and extubation [3,4,5] and attenuates the stress response to surgery [6], as a result of the α2-mediated reduction in sympathetic tone. Therefore, it should be possible to continue sedation with dexmedetomidine over the stressful extubation period without concerns over respiratory depression, while ensuring that haemodynamic stability is preserved.
The present study is a retrospective analysis of the respiratory response to dexmedetomidine in 33 postsurgical patients (who were involved in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [1]) after extubation in the ICU.
Methods:
Patients who participated in the present study were admitted after surgery to our general or cardiothoracic ICUs, and were expected to receive at least 6 h of postsurgical sedation and artificial ventilation.
On arrival in the ICU after surgery, patients were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine or placebo (normal saline) with rescue sedation and analgesia being provided, only if clinically needed, with midazolam and morphine boluses, respectively. Sedation was titrated to maintain a Ramsay Sedation Score [7] of 3 or greater while the patients were intubated, and infusions of study drug were continued for a maximum of 6 h after extubation to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 or greater.
The patients were intubated and ventilated with oxygen-enriched air to attain acceptable arterial blood gases, and extubation occurred when clinically indicated. All patients received supplemental oxygen after extubation, which was delivered by a fixed performance device. Assessment of pain was by direct communication with the patient.
Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise stated. Patient characteristics, operative details and morphine usage were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Statistical differences for respiratory measurements between the two groups were determined using analysis of variance for repeated measures, with the Bonferroni test for post hoc comparisons.
Results:
Of the 40 patients who participated in the study, seven patients could not be included in the analysis of respiratory function because they did not receive a study drug infusion after extubation. Consequently, data from 33 patients are used in the analysis of respiratory function; 16 received dexmedetomidine and 17 placebo. Inadequate arterial blood gas analysis was available in five patients (two from the dexmedetomidine group, and three from the placebo group). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics and operative details between the groups.
Requirements for morphine were reduced by more than 50% in patients receiving dexmedetomidine when compared with placebo after extubation (0.003 ± 0.004 vs 0.008 ± 0.006 mg/kg per h; P= 0.040).
There were no statistically significant differences between placebo and dexmedetomidine for oxygen saturations measured by pulse oximetry (P= 0.26), respiratory rate (P= 0.16; Fig. 1), arterial pH (P= 0.77) and PaCO2 (P= 0.75; Fig. 2) for the 6 h after extubation.
The dexmedetomidine group showed significantly higher PaO2: FIO2 ratios throughout the 6-h intubation (P= 0.036) and extubation (P= 0.037) periods (Fig. 3). There were no adverse respiratory events seen in either the dexmedetomidine or placebo group.
Respiratory rate for the 6-h periods before and after extubation. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
PaCO2 (PCO2) for the 6-h periods before and after extubation, and baseline values (B) on admission to ICU immediately after surgery. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
PaO2 : FIO2 ratio for the 6-h periods before and after extubation, and baseline values (B) on admission to ICU immediately after surgery. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Discussion:
Lack of respiratory depression in patients sedated with α2-adrenoceptor agonists was first reported by Maxwell [8] in a study investigating the respiratory effects of clonidine. However, more recent data suggests that clonidine may cause mild respiratory depression in humans [9], and α2-adrenoceptor agonists are well known to produce profound intraoperative hypoxaemia in sheep [10,11]. The effects of dexmedetomidine on other ventilation parameters also appear to be species specific [12].
Belleville et al [2] investigated the ventilatory effects of a 2-min intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine on human volunteers. According to those investigators, minute ventilation and arterial PaCO2 were mildly decreased and increased, respectively. There was a rightward shift and depression of the hypercapnic response with infusions of 1.0 and 2.0 μg/kg.
Previous studies that investigated the respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine have only been performed in healthy human volunteers, who have received either single intramuscular injections or short (= 10 min) intravenous infusions of dexmedetomidine. It is therefore reassuring that no deleterious clinical effects on respiration and gas exchange were seen in the patients we studied, who were receiving long-term infusions. However, there are important limitations to the present results. No dose/response curve for dexmedetomidine can be formulated from the data, and further investigation is probably ethically difficult to achieve in the spontaneously ventilating intensive care patient. We also have no data on the ventilatory responses to hypercapnia and hypoxia, which would also be difficult to examine practically and ethically. The placebo group received more than twice as much morphine as patients receiving dexmedetomidine infusions after extubation, but there were no differences in respiratory rate or PaCO2 between the groups. We can not therefore determine from this study whether dexmedetomidine has any benefits over morphine from a respiratory perspective.
There were no differences in oxygen saturations between the groups because the administered oxygen concentration was adjusted to maintain satisfactory gas exchange. Interestingly, however, there were statistically significant higher PaO2 : FIO2 ratios in the dexmedetomidine group. This ratio allows for the variation in administered oxygen to patients during the study period, and gives some clinical indication of alveolar gas exchange. However, this variable was not a primary outcome variable for the present study, and may represent a type 1 error, although post hoc analysis reveals that the data have 80% power to detect a significant difference (α value 0.05). Further studies are obviously required.
Sedation continued over the extubation period, has been shown to reduce haemodynamic disturbances and myocardial ischaemia [13]. We have previously shown [1] that dexmedetomidine provides cardiovascular stability, with a reduction in rate-pressure product over the extubation period. A sedative agent that has analgesic properties, minimal effects on respiration and offers ischaemia protection would have enormous potential in the ICU. Dexmedetomidine may fulfill all of these roles, but at present we can only conclude that dexmedetomidine has no deleterious clinical effects on respiration when used in doses that are sufficient to provide adequate sedation and effective analgesia in the surgical population requiring intensive care.
PMCID: PMC29047  PMID: 11056756
α2-Adrenoceptor agonist; analgesia; dexmedetomidine; intensive care; postoperative; respiratory; sedation
4.  Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care unit patients with brain injuries: a randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN50308308] 
Critical Care  2004;8(4):R268-R280.
Introduction
This randomised, open-label, observational, multicentre, parallel group study assessed the safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil in the neuro-intensive care unit.
Methods
Patients aged 18–80 years admitted to the intensive care unit within the previous 24 hours, with acute brain injury or after neurosurgery, intubated, expected to require mechanical ventilation for 1–5 days and requiring daily downward titration of sedation for assessment of neurological function were studied. Patients received one of two treatment regimens. Regimen one consisted of analgesia-based sedation, in which remifentanil (initial rate 9 μg kg-1 h-1) was titrated before the addition of a hypnotic agent (propofol [0.5 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 1–3, midazolam [0.03 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 4 and 5) (n = 84). Regimen two consisted of hypnotic-based sedation: hypnotic agent (propofol days 1–3; midazolam days 4 and 5) and fentanyl (n = 37) or morphine (n = 40) according to routine clinical practice. For each regimen, agents were titrated to achieve optimal sedation (Sedation–Agitation Scale score 1–3) and analgesia (Pain Intensity score 1–2).
Results
Overall, between-patient variability around the time of neurological assessment was statistically significantly smaller when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.44 versus fentanyl 0.86 [P = 0.024] versus morphine 0.98 [P = 0.006]. Overall, mean neurological assessment times were significantly shorter when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.41 hour versus fentanyl 0.71 hour [P = 0.001] versus morphine 0.82 hour [P < 0.001]). Patients receiving the remifentanil-based regimen were extubated significantly faster than those treated with morphine (1.0 hour versus 1.93 hour, P = 0.001) but there was no difference between remifentanil and fentanyl. Remifentanil was effective, well tolerated and provided comparable haemodynamic stability to that of the hypnotic-based regimen. Over three times as many users rated analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil as very good or excellent in facilitating assessment of neurological function compared with the hypnotic-based regimen.
Conclusions
Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil permitted significantly faster and more predictable awakening for neurological assessment. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was very effective, well tolerated and had a similar adverse event and haemodynamic profile to those of hypnotic-based regimens when used in critically ill neuro-intensive care unit patients for up to 5 days.
doi:10.1186/cc2896
PMCID: PMC522854  PMID: 15312228
analgesia-based sedation; fentanyl; intensive care; morphine; remifentanil
5.  Sedative Efficacy of Propofol in Patients Intubated/Ventilated after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 
Background:
Sedation after open heart surgery is important in preventing stress on the heart. The unique sedative features of propofol prompted us to evaluate its potential clinical role in the sedation of post-CABG patients.
Objectives:
To compare propofol-based sedation to midazolam-based sedation after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Patients and Methods:
Fifty patients who were admitted to the ICU after CABG surgery was randomized into two groups to receive sedation with either midazolam or propofol infusions; and additional analgesia was administered if required. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients 40-60 years old, hemodynamic stability, ejection fraction (EF) more than 40%; exclusion criteria included patients who required intra-aortic balloon pump or inotropic drugs post-bypass. The same protocol of anesthetic medications was used in both groups. Depth of sedation was monitored using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). Invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), arterial blood gas (ABG) and ventilatory parameters were monitored continuously after the start of study drug and until the patients were extubated.
Results:
The depth of sedation was almost the same in the two groups (RSS=4.5 in midazolam group vs 4.7 in propofol group; P = 0.259) but the total dose of fentanyl in the midazolam group was significantly more than the propofol group (12.5 mg/hr vs 4 mg/hr) (P = 0.0039). No significant differences were found in MAP (P = 0.51) and HR (P = 0.41) between the groups. The mean extubation time in patients sedated with propofol was shorter than those sedated with midazolam (102 ± 27 min vs 245 ± 42 min, respectively; P < 0.05) but the ICU discharge time was not shorter (47.5 hr vs 36.3 hr, respectively; P = 0.24).
Conclusions:
Propofol provided a safe and acceptable sedation for post-CABG surgical patients, significantly reduced the requirement for analgesics, and allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than midazolam but did not result in earlier ICU discharge.
doi:10.5812/aapm.17109
PMCID: PMC3961039  PMID: 24660162
Propofol; Analgesics; Coronary Artery Bypass; Deep Sedation; Midazolam; Airway Extubation; Length of Stay
6.  Sedation practice in the intensive care unit: a UK national survey 
Critical Care  2008;12(6):R152.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate sedation practice in UK intensive care units (ICUs), particularly the implementation of daily sedation holding, written sedation guidelines, sedation scoring tools and choice of agents.
Methods
A national postal survey was conducted in all UK ICUs.
Results
A total of 192 responses out of 302 addressed units were received (63.5%). Of the responding ICUs, 88% used a sedation scoring tool, most frequently the Ramsey Sedation Scale score (66.4%). The majority of units have a written sedation guideline (80%), and 78% state that daily sedation holding is practiced. A wide variety of sedating agents is used, with the choice of agent largely determined by the duration of action rather than cost. The most frequently used agents were propofol and alfentanil for short-term sedation; propofol, midazolam and morphine for longer sedation; and propofol for weaning purposes.
Conclusions
Most UK ICUs use a sedation guideline and sedation scoring tool. The concept of sedation holding has been implemented in the majority of units, and most ICUs have a written sedation guideline.
doi:10.1186/cc7141
PMCID: PMC2646317  PMID: 19046459
7.  Effect of an analgo-sedation protocol for neurointensive patients: a two-phase interventional non-randomized pilot study 
Critical Care  2010;14(2):R71.
Introduction
Sedation protocols are needed for neurointensive patients. The aim of this pilot study was to describe sedation practice at a neurointensive care unit and to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a new sedation protocol. The primary outcomes were a shift from sedation-based to analgesia-based sedation and improved pain management. The secondary outcomes were a reduction in unplanned extubations and duration of sedation.
Methods
This was a two-phase (before-after), prospective controlled study at a university-affiliated, 14-bed neurointensive care unit in Denmark. The sample included patients requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours treated with continuous sedative and analgesic infusions or both. During the observation phase the participants (n = 106) were sedated as usual (non-protocolized), and during the intervention phase the participants (n = 109) were managed according to a new sedation protocol.
Results
Our study showed a shift toward analgo-sedation, suggesting feasibility of the protocol. We found a significant reduction in the use of propofol (P < .001) and midazolam (P = .001) and an increase in fentanyl (P < .001) and remifentanil (P = .003). Patients selected for daily sedation interruption woke up faster, and estimates of pain free patients increased from 56.8% to 82.7% (P < .001), suggesting efficacy of the protocol. The duration of sedation and unplanned extubations were unchanged.
Conclusions
Our pilot study showed feasibility and partial efficacy of our protocol. Some neurointensive patients might not benefit from protocolized practice. We recommend an interdisciplinary effort to target patients requiring less sedation, as issues of oversedation and inadequate pain management still need more attention.
Trial registration
ISRCTN80999859.
doi:10.1186/cc8978
PMCID: PMC2887194  PMID: 20403186
8.  Comparison of Dexmedetomidine, Propofol and Midazolam for Short-Term Sedation in Postoperatively Mechanically Ventilated Neurosurgical Patients 
Background: Effective management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit depends on the needs of the patient, subjective and/or objective measurement and drug titration to achieve specific endpoints.
Aim: The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for sedation in neurosurgical patients for postoperative mechanical ventilation.
Materials and Methods: Ninety patients aged 20-65 years, ASA physical status I to III, undergoing neurosurgery and requiring postoperative ventilation were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.7 mcg/kg/h. Group P received propofol 1 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h. Group M received midazolam 0.04 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.08 mg/kg/h.
Measurements: Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation level, fentanyl requirement, ventilation and extubation time were recorded.
Results: Adequate sedation level was achieved with all three agents. Dexmedetomidine group required less fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. In group D there was a decrease in HR after dexmedetomidine infusion (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference in HR between group P and group M. After administration of study drug there was a significant decrease in MAP comparison to baseline value in all groups at all time intervals (p<0.05), except postextubation period (p>0.05). Extubation time was lowest in group P (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent compared to propofol and midazolam for sedation of neurosurgical mechanically ventilated patients with good hemodynamic stability and extubation time as rapid as propofol. Dexmedetomidine also reduced postoperative fentanyl requirements.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/8797.4817
PMCID: PMC4225903  PMID: 25386451
Hemodynamic changes; Neuroprotection; Opioids
9.  Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet? 
Critical Care  2013;17(3):320.
Expanded abstract
Citation
Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.
Background
Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.
Methods
Objective
The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients' interaction with nursing care.
Design
Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.
Setting
The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.
Subjects
The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.
Intervention
After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.
Outcomes
For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.
Results
Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).
Conclusions
Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.
doi:10.1186/cc12707
PMCID: PMC3706806  PMID: 23731973
10.  Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for monitored anesthesia care combined with tramadol via patient-controlled analgesia in endoscopic nasal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study 
Abstract
Background
Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) may be applied for septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery in which an adequate sedation and analgesia without respiratory depression are desired for comfort of both the patient and the surgeon. Several combinations with different agents have been used for this purpose in these patients. However, analgesic properties for these agents have not been reported.
Objective
The aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine or midazolam infusion combined with tramadol that was used via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and to document the effects of these drugs on early cognitive functions.
Methods
This prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study enrolled patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery at the Abant Izzet Baysal University Hospital, Bolu, Turkey, between February and September 2006. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio into 1 of 2 groups: the dexmedetomidine group (group D) patients received IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg · h−1; and the midazolam group (group M) patients were administered a loading dose of IV midazolam 40 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by infusion at the rate of 50 μg/kg · h−1. A 1-minute bolus dose of IV tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) was administered in both groups 10 minutes after the administration of the primary drug, and continued via infusion using a PCA device. After baseline measurements, systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation, and rate of respiration were recorded after the loading dose of study drug, after the bolus tramadol dose, at 10-minute intervals during the operation, and twice in the recovery rooms; 5 minutes after arrival and 5 minutes before discharge. Verbal rating score (VRS) and Ramsay sedation score were determined at baseline (after surgery was started), every 10 minutes thereafter until the end of the operation, and 2 times during recovery. All patients were assessed with the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised at baseline (preoperatively) and 4 hours after the operation.
Results
Seventy patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group D (sex, male/female, 23/12; mean [SEM] age, 32.53 [2.07] years; mean [SEM] weight, 73.03 [2.41] kg) or group M (sex, male/female, 21/14; mean [SEM] age, 34.43 [1.83] years; mean [SEM] weight, 67.90 [2.32] kg). All hemodynamic parameters (SAP, DAP, MAP, HR) were significantly higher in group M compared with group D from the onset of the surgery to discharge time (P < 0.05). Pain and sedation scores were similar in both groups, but the amount of PCA-administered rescue tramadol was significantly higher in group M (P = 0.001). A higher, though not statistically significant, prevalence of adverse events (ie, hypotension, bradycardia, and perioperative nausea and vomiting) were observed in group D. Postoperative logical verbal memory and digit span values were significantly higher in group D when compared with group M (P < 0.05). Postoperative digit span and visual reproduction scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group D (P < 0.05). Postoperative personality functioning scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group M (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Based on VRS, Ramsay sedation scores, and surgeon and anesthesiologist satisfaction scores, dexmedetomidine or midazolam combined with tramadol PCA provided adequate analgesia and sedation in these adult patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery with MAC. A significantly larger amount of rescue tramadol was used by group M, suggesting that a better analgesic effect was achieved with dexmedetomidine.
doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2007.04.001
PMCID: PMC3965987  PMID: 24678121
dexmedetomidine; midazolam; sedoanalgesia; cognitive function
11.  Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation for up to 10 days in intensive care unit patients: a randomised trial [ISRCTN47583497] 
Critical Care  2005;9(3):R200-R210.
Introduction
This randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the safety and efficacy of an analgesia-based sedation regime using remifentanil with a conventional hypnotic-based sedation regime in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation for up to 10 days.
Methods
One hundred and five randomised patients received either a remifentanil-based sedation regime (initial dose 6 to 9 μg kg-1 h-1 (0.1 to 0.15 μg kg-1 min-1) titrated to response before the addition of midazolam for further sedation (n = 57), or a midazolam-based sedation regime with fentanyl or morphine added for analgesia (n = 48). Patients were sedated to an optimal Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) score of 3 or 4 and a pain intensity (PI) score of 1 or 2.
Results
The remifentanil-based sedation regime significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation by more than 2 days (53.5 hours, P = 0.033), and significantly reduced the time from the start of the weaning process to extubation by more than 1 day (26.6 hours, P < 0.001). There was a trend towards shortening the stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 1 day. The median time of optimal SAS and PI was the same in both groups. There was a significant difference in the median time to offset of pharmacodynamic effects when discontinuing study medication in patients not extubated at 10 days (remifentanil 0.250 hour, comparator 1.167 hours; P < 0.001). Of the patients treated with remifentanil, 26% did not receive any midazolam during the study. In those patients that did receive midazolam, the use of remifentanil considerably reduced the total dose of midazolam required. Between days 3 and 10 the weighted mean infusion rate of remifentanil remained constant with no evidence of accumulation or of a development of tolerance to remifentanil. There was no difference between the groups in SAS or PI score in the 24 hours after stopping the study medication. Remifentanil was well tolerated.
Conclusion
Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was well tolerated; it reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and improves the weaning process compared with standard hypnotic-based sedation regimes in ICU patients requiring long-term ventilation for up to 10 days.
doi:10.1186/cc3495
PMCID: PMC1175879  PMID: 15987391
12.  Delirium, Sedation and Analgesia in the Intensive Care Unit: A Multinational, Two-Part Survey among Intensivists 
PLoS ONE  2014;9(11):e110935.
Analgesia, sedation and delirium management are important parts of intensive care treatment as they are relevant for patients' clinical and functional long-term outcome. Previous surveys showed that despite this fact implementation rates are still low. The primary aim of the prospective, observational multicenter study was to investigate the implementation rate of delirium monitoring among intensivists. Secondly, current practice concerning analgesia and sedation monitoring as well as treatment strategies for patients with delirium were assesed. In addition, this study compares perceived and actual practice regarding delirium, sedation and analgesia management. Data were obtained with a two-part, anonymous survey, containing general data from intensive care units in a first part and data referring to individual patients in a second part. Questionnaires from 101 hospitals (part 1) and 868 patients (part 2) were included in data analysis. Fifty-six percent of the intensive care units reported to monitor for delirium in clinical routine. Fourty-four percent reported the use of a validated delirium score. In this respect, the survey suggests an increasing use of delirium assessment tools compared to previous surveys. Nevertheless, part two of the survey revealed that in actual practice 73% of included patients were not monitored with a validated score. Furthermore, we observed a trend towards moderate or deep sedation which is contradicting to guideline-recommendations. Every fifth patient was suffering from pain. The implementation rate of adequate pain-assessment tools for mechanically ventilated and sedated patients was low (30%). In conclusion, further efforts are necessary to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01278524) and approved by the ethical committee.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110935
PMCID: PMC4232258  PMID: 25398099
13.  Comparison of clonidine and dexmedetomidine for short-term sedation of intensive care unit patients 
Background and Objectives:
Patients on mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU) are often uncomfortable because of anxiety, pain, and endotracheal intubation; therefore, require sedation. Alpha-2 agonists are known to produce sedation. We compared clonidine and dexmedetomidine as sole agents for sedation.
Study Design:
Prospective, randomized, controlled open-label study.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 70 patients requiring a minimum of 12 h of mechanical ventilation with concomitant sedation, were randomly allocated into two groups. Group C (n = 35) received intravenous (IV) clonidine (1 μg/kg/h titrated up to 2 μg/kg/h to attain target sedation), and Group D (n = 35) received IV dexmedetomidine for sedation (loading 0.7 μg/kg and maintenance 0.2 μg/kg/h titrated up to 0.7 μg/kg/h to achieve target sedation). A Ramsay Sedation Score of 3-4 was considered as target sedation. Additional sedation with diazepam was given when required to achieve target sedation. The quality of sedation, hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were noted and compared between the two groups.
Results:
Target sedation was achieved in 86% observations in Group D and 62% in Group C (P = 0.04). Additional sedation was needed by more patients in Group C compared with Group D (14 and 8 in Groups C and D, respectively, P = 0.034), mainly due to concomitant hypotension on increasing the dose of clonidine. Hypotension was the most common side-effect in Group C, occurring in 11/35 patients of Group C and 3/35 patients of Group D (P = 0.02). Rebound hypertension was seen in four patients receiving clonidine, but none in receiving dexmedetomidine.
Conclusion:
Both clonidine and dexmedetomidine produced effective sedation; however, the hemodynamic stability provided by dexmedetomidine gives it an edge over clonidine for short-term sedation of ICU patients.
doi:10.4103/0972-5229.136071
PMCID: PMC4118508  PMID: 25097355
Clonidine; dexmedetomidine; intensive care unit sedation
14.  Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713] 
Critical Care  2003;8(1):R1-R11.
Introduction
This double-blind, randomized, multicentre study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and fentanyl for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and analgesia.
Methods
Intubated cardiac, general postsurgical or medical patients (aged ≥ 18 years), who were mechanically ventilated for 12–72 hours, received remifentanil (9 μg/kg per hour; n = 77) or fentanyl (1.5 μg/kg per hour; n = 75). Initial opioid titration was supplemented with propofol (0.5 mg/kg per hour), if required, to achieve optimal sedation (i.e. a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4).
Results
The mean percentages of time in optimal sedation were 88.3% for remifentanil and 89.3% for fentanyl (not significant). Patients with a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4 exhibited significantly less between-patient variability in optimal sedation on remifentanil (variance ratio of fentanyl to remifentanil 1.84; P = 0.009). Of patients who received fentanyl 40% required propofol, as compared with 35% of those who received remifentanil (median total doses 683 mg and 378 mg, respectively; P = 0.065). Recovery was rapid (median time to extubation: 1.1 hours for remifentanil and 1.3 hours for fentanyl; not significant). Remifentanil patients who experienced pain did so for significantly longer during extubation (6.5% of the time versus 1.4%; P = 0.013), postextubation (10.2% versus 3.6%; P = 0.001) and post-treatment (13.5% versus 5.1%; P = 0.001), but they exhibited similar haemodynamic stability with no significant differences in adverse event incidence.
Conclusion
Analgesia based sedation with remifentanil titrated to response provided effective sedation and rapid extubation without the need for propofol in most patients. Fentanyl was similar, probably because the dosing algorithm demanded frequent monitoring and adjustment, thereby preventing over-sedation. Rapid offset of analgesia with remifentanil resulted in a greater incidence of pain, highlighting the need for proactive pain management when transitioning to longer acting analgesics, which is difficult within a double-blind study but would be quite possible under normal circumstances.
doi:10.1186/cc2398
PMCID: PMC420059  PMID: 14975049
analgesia; analgesia based sedation; critical care; fentanyl; propofol; remifentanil; renal function; sedation
15.  Isoflurane compared with midazolam for sedation in the intensive care unit. 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1989;298(6683):1277-1280.
OBJECTIVE--To compare isoflurane with midazolam for sedation of ventilated patients. DESIGN--Randomised control study. Setting--Intensive care unit in university teaching hospital. PATIENTS--Sixty patients aged 18-76 who required mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS--Sedation with either 0.1-0.6% isoflurane in an air-oxygen mixture (30 patients) or a continuous intravenous infusion of midazolam 0.01-0.20 mg/kg/h (30 patients). Sedation was assessed initially and hourly thereafter on a six point scale. Incremental intravenous doses of morphine 0.05 mg/kg were given for analgesia as required. The trial sedative was stopped when the patient was judged ready for weaning from ventilatory support or at 24 hours (whichever was earlier). END POINT--Achievement of a predetermined level of sedation for as much of the time as possible. MAIN RESULTS--Isoflurane produced satisfactory sedation for a greater proportion of time (86%) than midazolam (64%), and patients sedated with isoflurane recovered more rapidly from sedation. CONCLUSION--Isoflurane is a promising alternative technique for sedation of ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.
PMCID: PMC1836531  PMID: 2500195
16.  Microcirculatory alterations induced by sedation in intensive care patients. Effects of midazolam alone and in association with sufentanil 
Critical Care  2006;10(6):R176.
Introduction
Sedation is widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients to limit the risk of pulmonary barotrauma and to decrease oxygen needs. However, adverse effects of cc5128sedation have not been fully evaluated; in particular, effects of benzodiazepine and opiates on microcirculation have not been extensively studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microcirculatory effects of a sedation protocol commonly prescribed in the ICU.
Methods
Ten non-septic patients under controlled ventilation requiring sedation for therapeutic purposes were enrolled in a prospective observational study conducted in an ICU of a university hospital. Sedation was conducted in two successive steps: first, each patient received midazolam (0.1 mg/kg per hour after a bolus of 0.05 mg/kg, then adapted to reach a Ramsay score of between 3 and 5). Second, after one hour, sufentanil was added (0.1 μg/kg per hour after a bolus of 0.1 μg/kg). Arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac output determined by transthoracic impedance, transcutaneous oxygen (tcPO2) and carbon dioxide (tcPCO2) pressures, and microcirculatory blood flow determined by laser Doppler flowmetry at rest and during a reactive hyperaemia challenge were measured before sedation (NS period), one hour after midazolam infusion (H period), and one hour after midazolam-sufentanil infusion (HS period).
Results
Arterial pressure decreased in both sedation periods, but heart rate, cardiac output, tcPO2, and tcPCO2 remained unchanged. In both sedation periods, microcirculatory changes occurred with an increase in cutaneous blood flow at rest (H period: 207 ± 25 perfusion units [PU] and HS period: 205 ± 25 PU versus NS period: 150 ± 22 PU, p < 0.05), decreased response to ischaemia (variation of blood flow to peak: H period: 97 ± 16 PU and HS period: 73 ± 9 PU versus NS period: 141 ± 14 PU, p < 0.05), and attenuation of vasomotion.
Conclusion
Sedation with midazolam or a combination of midazolam and sufentanil induces a deterioration of vasomotion and microvascular response to ischaemia, raising the question of whether this effect may further alter tissue perfusion when already compromised, as in septic patients.
doi:10.1186/cc5128
PMCID: PMC1794492  PMID: 17173680
17.  A national survey into perioperative anesthetic management of patients with a fractured neck of femur 
BMC Anesthesiology  2012;12:14.
Background
We made a survey among Finnish anesthesiologists concerning the current perioperative anesthetic practice of hip fracture patients for further development in patient care.
Methods
All members of the Finnish Society of Anesthesiologists with a known e-mail address (786) were invited to participate in an internet-based survey.
Results
The overall response rate was 55% (423 responses); 298 respondents participated in the care of hip fracture patients. Preoperative analgesia was mostly managed with oxycodone and paracetamol; every fifth respondent applied an epidural infusion. Most respondents (98%) employed a spinal block with or without an epidural catheter for intraoperative anesthesia. Midazolam, propofol and/or fentanyl were used for additional sedation. General anesthesia was used rarely. Postoperatively, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and occasionally peroral oxycodone, were prescribed in addition to epidural analgesia.
Conclusions
The survey suggests that the impact of more individualised analgesia regimens, both preoperatively and postoperatively, should be investigated in further studies.
doi:10.1186/1471-2253-12-14
PMCID: PMC3432003  PMID: 22839198
Hip fracture; Perioperative management; Anesthetic practice
18.  Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial 
Critical Care  2006;10(3):R91.
Introduction
Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.
Methods
In this prospective, open-label, randomised, single-centre study, a total of 80 patients (18 to 75 years old), who had undergone cardiac surgery, were postoperatively assigned to one of two treatment regimens for sedation in the ICU for 12 to 72 hours. Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group received remifentanil (6- max. 60 μg kg-1 h-1; dose exceeds recommended labelling). Propofol (0.5 to 4.0 mg kg-1 h-1) was supplemented only in the case of insufficient sedation at maximal remifentanil dose. Patients in the midazolam/fentanyl group received midazolam (0.02 to 0.2 mg kg-1 h-1) and fentanyl (1.0 to 7.0 μg kg-1 h-1). For treatment of pain after extubation, both groups received morphine and/or non-opioid analgesics.
Results
The time intervals (mean values ± standard deviation) from arrival at the ICU until extubation (20.7 ± 5.2 hours versus 24.2 h ± 7.0 hours) and from arrival until eligible discharge from the ICU (46.1 ± 22.0 hours versus 62.4 ± 27.2 hours) were significantly (p < 0.05) shorter in the remifentanil/propofol group. Overall costs of the ICU stay per patient were equal (approximately €1,700 on average).
Conclusion
Compared with midazolam/fentanyl, a remifentanil-based regimen for analgesia and sedation supplemented with propofol significantly reduced the time on mechanical ventilation and allowed earlier discharge from the ICU, at equal overall costs.
doi:10.1186/cc4939
PMCID: PMC1550941  PMID: 16780597
19.  Entropy and bispectral index for assessment of sedation, analgesia and the effects of unpleasant stimuli in critically ill patients: an observational study 
Critical Care  2008;12(5):R119.
Introduction
Sedative and analgesic drugs are frequently used in critically ill patients. Their overuse may prolong mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Guidelines recommend use of sedation protocols that include sedation scores and trials of sedation cessation to minimize drug use. We evaluated processed electroencephalography (response and state entropy and bispectral index) as an adjunct to monitoring effects of commonly used sedative and analgesic drugs and intratracheal suctioning.
Methods
Electrodes for monitoring bispectral index and entropy were placed on the foreheads of 44 critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation and who previously had no brain dysfunction. Sedation was targeted individually using the Ramsay Sedation Scale, recorded every 2 hours or more frequently. Use of and indications for sedative and analgesic drugs and intratracheal suctioning were recorded manually and using a camera. At the end of the study, processed electroencephalographical and haemodynamic variables collected before and after each drug application and tracheal suctioning were analyzed. Ramsay score was used for comparison with processed electroencephalography when assessed within 15 minutes of an intervention.
Results
The indications for boli of sedative drugs exhibited statistically significant, albeit clinically irrelevant, differences in terms of their association with processed electroencephalographical parameters. Electroencephalographical variables decreased significantly after bolus, but a specific pattern in electroencephalographical variables before drug administration was not identified. The same was true for opiate administration. At both 30 minutes and 2 minutes before intratracheal suctioning, there was no difference in electroencephalographical or clinical signs in patients who had or had not received drugs 10 minutes before suctioning. Among patients who received drugs, electroencephalographical parameters returned to baseline more rapidly. In those cases in which Ramsay score was assessed before the event, processed electroencephalography exhibited high variation.
Conclusions
Unpleasant or painful stimuli and sedative and analgesic drugs are associated with significant changes in processed electroencephalographical parameters. However, clinical indications for drug administration were not reflected by these electroencephalographical parameters, and barely by sedation level before drug administration or tracheal suction. This precludes incorporation of entropy and bispectral index as target variables for sedation and analgesia protocols in critically ill patients.
doi:10.1186/cc7015
PMCID: PMC2592749  PMID: 18796156
20.  The place for short-acting opioids: special emphasis on remifentanil 
Critical Care  2008;12(Suppl 3):S5.
Pain is among the worst possible experiences for the critically ill. Therefore, nearly all intensive care patients receive some kind of pain relief, and opioids are most frequently administered. Morphine has a number of important adverse effects, including histamine release, pruritus, constipation, and, in particular, accumulation of morphine-6-glucuronide in patients with renal impairment. Hence, it is not an ideal analgesic for use in critically ill patients. Although the synthetic opioids fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil have better profiles, they undergo hepatic metabolism and their continuous infusion also leads to accumulation and prolonged drug effects. Various attempts have been made to limit these adverse effects, including daily interruption of infusion of sedatives and analgesics, intermittent bolus injections rather than continuous infusions, and selection of a ventilatory support pattern that allows more spontaneous ventilation. However, these techniques at best only limit the effects of drug accumulation, but they do not solve the problem. Another type of approach is to use remifentanil in critically ill patients. Remifentanil is metabolized by unspecific blood and tissue esterases and undergoes rapid metabolism, independent of the duration of infusion or any organ insufficiency. There are data indicating that remifentanil can be used for analgesia and sedation in all kinds of adult intensive care unit patients, and that its use will result in rapid and predictable offset of effect. This may permit both a significant reduction in weaning and extubation times, and clear differentiation between over-sedation and brain dysfunction. This article provides an overview of the use of short-acting opioids in the intensive care unit, with special emphasis on remifentanil. It summarizes the currently available study data regarding remifentanil and provides recommendations for clinical use of this agent.
doi:10.1186/cc6152
PMCID: PMC2391266  PMID: 18495056
21.  Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2013;14:92.
Background
A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the ‘conscious target’: patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs.
Methods/Design
A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses.
Discussion
This ‘educational research’ project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake.
Trial registration number
Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-92
PMCID: PMC3651718  PMID: 23551983
Sedation; Hydroxyzine; Melatonin; Enteral approach; High-risk critically ill; Educational research
22.  Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2012;13:135.
Background
State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.
Method/Design
This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.
Discussion
This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.
Trial registration
EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-135
PMCID: PMC3502585  PMID: 22883020
Inhalative sedation; Intravenous sedation; Intensive care; Sevoflurane
23.  Cost-consequence analysis of remifentanil-based analgo-sedation vs. conventional analgesia and sedation for patients on mechanical ventilation in the Netherlands 
Critical Care  2010;14(6):R195.
Introduction
Hospitals are increasingly forced to consider the economics of technology use. We estimated the incremental cost-consequences of remifentanil-based analgo-sedation (RS) vs. conventional analgesia and sedation (CS) in patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), using a modelling approach.
Methods
A Markov model was developed to describe patient flow in the ICU. The hourly probabilities to move from one state to another were derived from UltiSAFE, a Dutch clinical study involving ICU patients with an expected MV-time of two to three days requiring analgesia and sedation. Study medication was either: CS (morphine or fentanyl combined with propofol, midazolam or lorazepam) or: RS (remifentanil, combined with propofol when required). Study drug costs were derived from the trial, whereas all other ICU costs were estimated separately in a Dutch micro-costing study. All costs were measured from the hospital perspective (price level of 2006). Patients were followed in the model for 28 days. We also studied the sub-population where weaning had started within 72 hours.
Results
The average total 28-day costs were €15,626 with RS versus €17,100 with CS, meaning a difference in costs of €1474 (95% CI -2163, 5110). The average length-of-stay (LOS) in the ICU was 7.6 days in the RS group versus 8.5 days in the CS group (difference 1.0, 95% CI -0.7, 2.6), while the average MV time was 5.0 days for RS versus 6.0 days for CS. Similar differences were found in the subgroup analysis.
Conclusions
Compared to CS, RS significantly decreases the overall costs in the ICU.
Trial Registration
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00158873.
doi:10.1186/cc9313
PMCID: PMC3219979  PMID: 21040558
24.  A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada 
BACKGROUND:
There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.
METHODS:
A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.
RESULTS:
Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.
CONCLUSIONS:
Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.
PMCID: PMC3115005  PMID: 21647459
Canada; Colonoscopy; Endoscopy room staffing; Propofol; Sedation
25.  Dexmedetomidine ameliorates monitored anaesthesia care 
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  2014;58(2):154-159.
Background and Aims:
Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is meant for procedures under local anaesthesia. Various drugs have been used for this purpose. The recently introduced alpha2 agonist, dexmedetomidine provides “conscious sedation” with adequate analgesia and minimal respiratory depression. Hence, the safety and efficacy of two doses of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia were evaluated.
Methods:
A total of 90 patients were distributed in three groups of 30 each: Dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg (DL), dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg (DH) and normal saline (C). The initial loading dose was followed by maintenance infusion of 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine or equivalent volume of saline. Study drug was started at least 15 min before placement of local anaesthesia. Drugs were titrated to a target level of sedation (=3 on Ramsay sedation scale [RSS]). Midazolam 0.02 mg/kg for RSS < 3 and fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg were supplemented as required. The statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square test and mean and anova analysis.
Results:
In groups DL and DH fewer patients required supplemental midazolam, 56.7% (17/30) and 40% (12/30), compared with control, where 86.7% (26/30)needed midazolam supplements. P = 0.000. Both groups DL and DH required significantly less fentanyl (84.8 and 83.9 μg) versus control (144.2 μg). There was significantly increased ease of achieving and maintaining targeted sedation and analgesia in both dexmedetomidine groups when compared with placebo (P = 0.001). Adverse events observed with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension.
Conclusions:
Dexmedetomidine in the doses studied was considered safe and effective sedative and analgesic for patients undergoing procedures under MAC.
doi:10.4103/0019-5049.130816
PMCID: PMC4050931  PMID: 24963179
Conscious sedation; dexmedetomidine; monitored anaesthesia care; respiratory depression

Results 1-25 (608912)