PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (400820)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  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
2.  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
3.  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
4.  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
5.  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
6.  Sedation and Analgesia in Intensive Care: A Comparison of Fentanyl and Remifentanil 
Pain Research and Treatment  2011;2011:650320.
Optimal sedation and analgesia are of key importance in intensive care. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of sedoanalgesia and outcome parameters in regimens containing midazolam and either fentanyl or remifentanil. A prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled trial was carried out in the ICU unit of a large teaching hospital in Istanbul over a 9-month period. Thirty-four patients were randomly allocated to receive either a remifentanil-midazolam regimen (R group, n = 17) or a fentanyl-midazolam regimen (F group, n = 17). A strong correlation between Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) and Ramsey Scale (RS) measurements was observed. Comparatively, remifentanil provided significantly more potent and rapid analgesia based on Behavioral-Physiological Scale (BPS) measurements and a statistically nonsignificantly shorter time to discharge. On the other hand, remifentanil also caused a significantly sharper fall in heart rate within the first six hours of treatment.
doi:10.1155/2011/650320
PMCID: PMC3197257  PMID: 22110929
7.  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
8.  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
9.  Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? A randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam 
Background
This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.
Aims
The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.
Methods
Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.
Result
Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).
Conclusion
This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.
doi:10.1007/s12245-010-0162-3
PMCID: PMC2885259  PMID: 20606819
Procedural sedation analgesia; Midazolam; Propofol; Emergency department
10.  Use of sevoflurane inhalation sedation for outpatient third molar surgery. 
Anesthesia Progress  1999;46(1):21-29.
This study attempted to determine if sevoflurane in oxygen inhaled via a nasal hood as a sole sedative agent would provide an appropriate level of deep sedation for outpatient third molar surgery. Twenty-four patients scheduled for third molar removal were randomly assigned to receive either nasal hood inhalation sevoflurane or an intravenous deep sedation using midazolam and fentanyl followed by a propofol infusion. In addition to measuring patient, surgeon, and dentist anesthesiologist subjective satisfaction with the technique, physiological parameters, amnesia, and psychomotor recovery were also assessed. No statistically significant difference was found between the sevoflurane and midazolam-fentanyl-propofol sedative groups in physiological parameters, degree of amnesia, reported quality of sedation, or patient willingness to again undergo a similar deep sedation. A trend toward earlier recovery in the sevoflurane group was identified. Sevoflurane can be successfully employed as a deep sedative rather than a general anesthetic for extraction of third molars in healthy subjects.
PMCID: PMC2148884  PMID: 10551056
11.  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
12.  Remifentanil for analgesia-based sedation in the intensive care unit 
Critical Care  2003;8(1):13-14.
Providing effective analgesia and adequate sedation is a generally accepted goal of intensive care medicine. Due to its rapid, organ independent and predictable metabolism the short acting opioid remifentanil might be particularly useful for analgesia-based sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). This hypothesis was tested by two studies in this issue of Critical Care. The study by Breen et al. shows that remifentanil does not exert prolonged clinical effects when continuously infused in renal failure patients, although the weak acting metabolite remifentanil acid accumulates. The study by Muellejans et al. reports a multicenter trial comparing a remifentanil versus a fentanyl based regimen in ICU patients. With both substances a target analgesia and sedation level was reached, and no major differences were found when frequent assessments of the sedation level and according readjustments of doses were performed. These results are in accordance with other studies suggesting that the adherence to a clear analgesia-based sedation protocol might be more important then the choice of medications itself.
doi:10.1186/cc2421
PMCID: PMC420067  PMID: 14975040
analgesia; sedation; remifentanil; organ failure
13.  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
14.  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
15.  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
16.  Comparative study between dexmedetomidine and fentanyl for sedation during mechanical ventilation in post-operative paediatric cardiac surgical patients 
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  2012;56(6):547-552.
Aims and Objectives:
To compare the efficacy of sedation and time taken for extubation using dexmedetomidine and fentanyl sedation in post-operative paediatric cardiac surgical patients.
Methods:
A prospective randomized double-blind study involving 60 children undergoing open heart surgery was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups, each involving 30 patients. One group received fentanyl at 1 μg/kg/h (Group A) and the other received dexmedetomidine at 0.5 μg/kg/h (Group B) for post-operative sedation with intermittent rescue fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg bolus in either group as per requirement during suctioning. The efficacy of sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation score, paediatric intensive care unit sedation score and the tracheal suction score. The time taken for extubation from the stoppage of infusion was noted.
Results:
Haemodynamic parameters between the two groups were comparable. All sedation scores were comparable in the fentanyl and dexmedetomidine groups. Average time (in minutes) required for extubation was 131.0 (±51.06 SD) in the dexmedetomidine group compared with 373.0 (±121.4 SD) in the fentanyl group. The difference in mean time for extubation was statistically significant.
Conclusions:
Dexmedetomidine facilitates adequate sedation for mechanical ventilation and also early extubation as compared with fentanyl.
doi:10.4103/0019-5049.104572
PMCID: PMC3546241  PMID: 23325939
Dexmedetomidine; fentanyl; mechanical ventilation; sedation
17.  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
18.  Spectral entropy for assessing the depth of propofol sedation 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2012;62(3):234-239.
Background
For patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or under monitored anesthetic care (MAC), the precise monitoring of sedation depth facilitates the optimization of dosage and prevents adverse complications from underor over-sedation. For this purpose, conventional subjective sedation scales, such as the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) or the Ramsay scale, have been widely utilized. Current procedures frequently disturb the patient's comfort and compromise the already well-established sedation. Therefore, reliable objective sedation scales that do not cause disturbances would be beneficial. We aimed to determine whether spectral entropy can be used as a sedation monitor as well as determine its ability to discriminate all levels of propofol-induced sedation during gradual increments of propofol dosage.
Methods
In 25 healthy volunteers undergoing general anesthesia, the values of response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE) corresponding to each OAA/S (5 to 1) were determined. The scores were then analyzed during each 0.5 mcg/ml- incremental increase of a propofol dose.
Results
We observed a reduction of both RE and SE values that correlated with the OAA/S (correlation coefficient of 0.819 in RE-OAA/S and 0.753 in SE-OAA/S). The RE and SE values corresponding to awake (OAA/S score 5), light sedation (OAA/S 3-4) and deep sedation (OAA/S 1-2) displayed differences (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
The results indicate that spectral entropy can be utilized as a reliable objective monitor to determine the depth of propofol-induced sedation.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.3.234
PMCID: PMC3315652  PMID: 22474549
Entropy; Propofol; Sedation
19.  Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography 
Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v3.i2.34
PMCID: PMC3055942  PMID: 21403815
Deep sedation; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography; Monitoring; Sedatives
20.  Analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit: an overview of the issues 
Critical Care  2008;12(Suppl 3):S1.
Analgesic and sedative medications are widely used in intensive care units to achieve patient comfort and tolerance of the intensive care unit environment, and to eliminate pain, anxiety, delirium and other forms of distress. Surveys and prospective cohort studies have revealed wide variability in medication selection, monitoring using sedation scales, and implementation of structured treatment algorithms among practitioners in different countries and regions of the world. Successful management of analgesia and sedation incorporates a patient-based approach that includes detection and management of predisposing and causative factors, including delirium; monitoring using analgesia and sedation scales and other instruments; proper medication selection, with an emphasis on analgesia-based drugs; and incorporation of structured strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce likelihood of excessive or prolonged sedation.
doi:10.1186/cc6147
PMCID: PMC2391267  PMID: 18495052
21.  Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care – short version 
Targeted monitoring of analgesia, sedation and delirium, as well as their appropriate management in critically ill patients is a standard of care in intensive care medicine. With the undisputed advantages of goal-oriented therapy established, there was a need to develop our own guidelines on analgesia and sedation in intensive care in Germany and these were published as 2nd Generation Guidelines in 2005. Through the dissemination of these guidelines in 2006, use of monitoring was shown to have improved from 8 to 51% and the use of protocol-based approaches increased to 46% (from 21%).
Between 2006–2009, the existing guidelines from the DGAI (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) were developed into 3rd Generation Guidelines for the securing and optimization of quality of analgesia, sedation and delirium management in the intensive care unit (ICU). In collaboration with another 10 professional societies, the literature has been reviewed using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Using data from 671 reference works, text, diagrams and recommendations were drawn up. In the recommendations, Grade “A” (very strong recommendation), Grade “B” (strong recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation) were agreed.
As a result of this process we now have an interdisciplinary and consensus-based set of 3rd Generation Guidelines that take into account all critically illness patient populations.
The use of protocols for analgesia, sedation and treatment of delirium are repeatedly demonstrated. These guidelines offer treatment recommendations for the ICU team. The implementation of scores and protocols into routine ICU practice is necessary for their success.
doi:10.3205/000091
PMCID: PMC2830566  PMID: 20200655
guideline; evidence; analgesia; sedation; delirium; monitoring; treatment; intensive care
22.  A prospective randomized double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine vs. combination of midazolam-fentanyl for tympanoplasty surgery under monitored anesthesia care 
Background:
Analgesia and sedation are usually required for the comfort of the patient and surgeon during tympanoplasty surgery done under local anesthesia. In this study, satisfaction scores and effectiveness of sedation and analgesia with dexmedetomidine were compared with a combination of midazolam-fentanyl.
Materials and Methods:
Ninety patients undergoing tympanoplasty under local anesthesia randomly received either IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg-1 over 10 min followed by 0.2 μg kg-1h-1 infusion (Group D) or IV midazolam 0.06 mg kg-1 plus IV fentanyl 1 μg kg-1 over 10 min (Group MF) followed by normal saline infusion at 0.2 ml kg-1h-1. Sedation was titrated to Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of three. Vital parameters, rescue analgesics (fentanyl 1 μg kg-1) and sedatives (midazolam 0.01 mg kg-1), patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.
Results:
Patient and surgeon satisfaction score was better in Group D than Group MF (median interquartile range (IQR) 9 (8-10) vs. 8 (6.5-9.5) and 9 (8.5-9.5) vs. 8 (6.75-9.25), P = 0.0001 for both). Intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in Group D were lower than the baseline values and the corresponding values in Group MF (P < 0.05). Percentage of patients requiring rescue fentanyl was higher in Group MF than Group D (40% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.01). One patient in Group D while four in Group MF (8.8%) required rescue sedation with midazolam (P > 0.17). Seven patients in Group D had dry mouth vs. none in Group MF (P = 0.006). One patient in Group D had bradycardia with hypotension which was effectively treated.
Conclusion:
Dexmedetomidine is comparable to midazolam-fentanyl for sedation and analgesia in tympanoplasty with better surgeon and patient satisfaction. Hemodynamics need to be closely monitored.
doi:10.4103/0970-9185.111671
PMCID: PMC3713662  PMID: 23878436
Dexmedetomidine; sedation; midazolam fentanyl sedation; monitored anesthesia care; satisfaction scores; surgery; otological
23.  Sedation in the intensive care setting 
Critically ill patients are routinely provided analgesia and sedation to prevent pain and anxiety, permit invasive procedures, reduce stress and oxygen consumption, and improve synchrony with mechanical ventilation. Regional preferences, patient history, institutional bias, and individual patient and practitioner variability, however, create a wide discrepancy in the approach to sedation of critically ill patients. Untreated pain and agitation increase the sympathetic stress response, potentially leading to negative acute and long-term consequences. Oversedation, however, occurs commonly and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including longer time on mechanical ventilation, prolonged stay in the intensive care unit, and increased brain dysfunction (delirium and coma). Modifying sedation delivery by incorporating analgesia and sedation protocols, targeted arousal goals, daily interruption of sedation, linked spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, and early mobilization of patients have all been associated with improvements in patient outcomes and should be incorporated into the clinical management of critically ill patients. To improve outcomes, including time on mechanical ventilation and development of acute brain dysfunction, conventional sedation paradigms should be altered by providing necessary analgesia, incorporating propofol or dexmedetomidine to reach arousal targets, and reducing benzodiazepine exposure.
doi:10.2147/CPAA.S26582
PMCID: PMC3508653  PMID: 23204873
fentanyl; propofol; dexmedetomidine; Behavioral Pain Scale; Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale; Sedation-Agitation Scale; Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU
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.  Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues 
Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463
PMCID: PMC3558570  PMID: 23382625
Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Endoscopy; Sedation; Analgesia; Digestive system

Results 1-25 (400820)