Use of Early Ketamine Sedation and Association With Clinical and Cost Outcomes Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the utilization of early ketamine use among patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19, and examine associations with in-hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six hundred ten hospitals contributing data to the Premier Healthcare Database between April 2020 and June 2021. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19 and greater than or equal to 2 consecutive days of mechanical ventilation within 5 days of hospitalization. INTERVENTION: The exposures were early ketamine use initiated within 2 days of intubation and continued for greater than 1 day. MEASUREMENTS: Primary was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and ICUs, ventilator days, vasopressor days, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and total hospital cost. The propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust for confounders. MAIN RESULTS: Among 42,954 patients, 1,423 (3.3%) were exposed to early ketamine use. After propensity score matching including 1,390 patients in each group, recipients of ketamine infusions were associated with higher hospital mortality (52.5% vs. 45.9%, risk ratio: 1.14, [1.06-1.23]), longer median ICU stay (13 vs. 12 d, mean ratio [MR]: 1.15 [1.08-1.23]), and longer ventilator days (12 vs. 11 d, MR: 1.19 [1.12-1.27]). There were no associations for hospital LOS (17 [10-27] vs. 17 [9-28], MR: 1.05 [0.99-1.12]), vasopressor days (4 vs. 4, MR: 1.04 [0.95-1.14]), and RRT (22.9% vs. 21.7%, RR: 1.05 [0.92-1.21]). Total hospital cost was higher (median $72,481 vs. $65,584, MR: 1.11 [1.05-1.19]). CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse sample of U.S. hospitals, about one in 30 patients mechanically ventilated with COVID-19 received ketamine infusions. Early ketamine may have an association with higher hospital mortality, increased total cost, ICU stay, and ventilator days, but no associations for hospital LOS, vasopressor days, and RRT. However, confounding by the severity of illness might occur due to higher extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and RRT use in the ketamine group. Further randomized trials are needed to better understand the role of ketamine infusions in the management of critically ill patients.

Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures.

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

Pragmatic sedation strategies to prevent secondary brain injury in low-resource settings.

Traumatic brain injury is the alteration in brain function due to an external force. It is common and affects millions of people worldwide annually. The World Health Organization estimates that 90% of global deaths caused by injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries, with traumatic brain injury contributing up to half of these trauma-related deaths. Patients with traumatic brain injury in low- and middle-income countries have twice the odds of dying compared with their counterparts in high-income countries. Sedation is a key element of care in the management of traumatic brain injury, used for its neuroprotective effects and to prevent secondary brain injury. While sedatives have the potential to improve outcomes, they can be challenging to administer and have potentially dangerous complications. Sedation in low-resource settings should aim to be effective, safe, affordable and feasible. In this paper, we summarise the indications for sedation in traumatic brain injury, the choice of sedative drugs and the pragmatic management and monitoring of sedated traumatic brain injury patients in low-resource settings.

Effect of enterally administered sleep-promoting medication on the intravenous sedative dose and its safety and cost profile in mechanically ventilated patients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effect of enteral administration of sleep-promoting medication (SPM) in mechanically ventilated patients remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between enteral SPM administration and the intravenous sedative dose and examine the safety and cost of enteral SPM administration. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in a Japanese tertiary hospital intensive care unit (ICU). The exposure was enteral SPM administration during mechanical ventilation. The outcome was the average daily propofol dose per body weight administered as a continuous sedative during mechanical ventilation. Patients were divided into three groups based on the timing of SPM administration at ICU admission: "administration within 48 hours (early administration [EA])," "administration after 48 hours (late administration [LA])," and "no administration (NA)." We used multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: Of 123 included patients, 37, 50, and 36 patients were assigned to the EA, LA, and NA groups, respectively. The average daily propofol dose per body weight was significantly lower in the EA group than in the LA and NA groups (ß -5.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.93 to -1.33] and ß -4.51 [95% CI -8.59 to -0.43], respectively). Regarding safety, enteral SPM administration did not increase adverse events, including self-extubation. The total cost of neuroactive drugs tended to be lower in the EA group than in the LA and NA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early enteral SPM administration reduced the average daily propofol dose per body weight without increasing adverse events.

Relationship between use of sleep medication and accidental falls during hospitalization.

Falls are common in elderly patients, and prevention of fall is important for safety and for reduction of health care costs. Sleep medications are among many potential causes of fall. In this study, we examined relationship of sleep medication with fall from January 2017 to December 2017. 726 falls occurred in 442 patients, and the average age at the time of fall was 60.7 ± 23.8 years. Fall was most common in patients with neurological disease, followed by gastroenterological, ophthalmological, respiratory, and orthopedic conditions. Sleep medication was used in 223 falls (31%). Fall occurred at all times of day, but with a different distribution in patients with and without use of sleep medication. Thus, the rate of falls from 22:00 to 6:00 was significantly higher in patients using sleep medication (62% vs. 18%, p<0.01). There was also a significantly higher rate of multiple falls in patient using sleep medication (p<0.01). Zolpidem (25%, n=63), a non-benzodiazepine, was the most frequently used sleep medication, followed by brotizolam (16%, n=41) and etizolam (13%, n=32), which are both benzodiazepines. Multiple falls from 22:00 to 6:00 occurred significantly more frequently in patients using ≥2 types of sleep medications compared to one (53% vs. 17%, p<0.01). Taking multiple sleeping pills makes it easier to fall, and even drugs with a short half-life, which are considered to be safe, can cause falls at night in elderly patients. The results of this study show that careful selection of sleep medications is required to prevent fall in elderly patients.

Mortality and concurrent use of opioids and hypnotics in older patients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine hypnotics and the related nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (z-drugs) are among the most frequently prescribed medications for older adults. Both can depress respiration, which could have fatal cardiorespiratory effects, particularly among patients with concurrent opioid use. Trazodone, frequently prescribed in low doses for insomnia, has minimal respiratory effects, and, consequently, may be a safer hypnotic for older patients. Thus, for patients beginning treatment with benzodiazepine hypnotics or z-drugs, we compared deaths during periods of current hypnotic use, without or with concurrent opioids, to those for comparable patients receiving trazodone in doses up to 100 mg. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The retrospective cohort study in the United States included 400,924 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older without severe illness or evidence of substance use disorder initiating study hypnotic therapy from January 2014 through September 2015. Study endpoints were out-of-hospital (primary) and total mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for demographic characteristics, psychiatric and neurologic disorders, cardiovascular and renal conditions, respiratory diseases, pain-related diagnoses and medications, measures of frailty, and medical care utilization in a time-dependent propensity score-stratified analysis. Patients without concurrent opioids had 32,388 person-years of current use, 260 (8.0/1,000 person-years) out-of-hospital and 418 (12.9/1,000) total deaths for benzodiazepines; 26,497 person-years,150 (5.7/1,000) out-of-hospital and 227 (8.6/1,000) total deaths for z-drugs; and 16,177 person-years,156 (9.6/1,000) out-of-hospital and 256 (15.8/1,000) total deaths for trazodone. Out-of-hospital and total mortality for benzodiazepines (respective HRs: 0.99 [95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.22, p = 0.954] and 0.95 [0.82 to 1.14, p = 0.513] and z-drugs (HRs: 0.96 [0.76 to 1.23], p = 0.767 and 0.87 [0.72 to 1.05], p = 0.153) did not differ significantly from that for trazodone. Patients with concurrent opioids had 4,278 person-years of current use, 90 (21.0/1,000) out-of-hospital and 127 (29.7/1,000) total deaths for benzodiazepines; 3,541 person-years, 40 (11.3/1,000) out-of-hospital and 64 (18.1/1,000) total deaths for z-drugs; and 2,347 person-years, 19 (8.1/1,000) out-of-hospital and 36 (15.3/1,000) total deaths for trazodone. Out-of-hospital and total mortality for benzodiazepines (HRs: 3.02 [1.83 to 4.97], p < 0.001 and 2.21 [1.52 to 3.20], p < 0.001) and z-drugs (HRs: 1.98 [1.14 to 3.44], p = 0.015 and 1.65 [1.09 to 2.49], p = 0.018) were significantly increased relative to trazodone; findings were similar with exclusion of overdose deaths or restriction to those with cardiovascular causes. Limitations included composition of the study cohort and potential confounding by unmeasured variables. CONCLUSIONS: In US Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older without concurrent opioids who initiated treatment with benzodiazepine hypnotics, z-drugs, or low-dose trazodone, study hypnotics were not associated with mortality. With concurrent opioids, benzodiazepines and z-drugs were associated with increased out-of-hospital and total mortality. These findings indicate that the dangers of benzodiazepine-opioid coadministration go beyond the documented association with overdose death and suggest that in combination with opioids, the z-drugs may be more hazardous than previously thought.

Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system. METHODS: Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates. RESULTS: Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

[Standardization of Hypnotic Agents for Prevention of Falls: A Pharmacoeconomic Study].

To reduce the number of falls caused by hypnotic agents, the standardization of insomnia treatment was carried out at Yamaguchi University Hospital from April 2019. There were concerns that medical costs would increase due to the selected medicines-suvorexant and eszopiclone-being more expensive than conventional benzodiazepines. In this study, the standardization of insomnia treatment was evaluated by pharmacoeconomics. The costs of the hypnotic agents was considered, as was the cost of examination/treatment following falls. Effectiveness was evaluated as the incidence of falls within 24 hours of taking hypnotic agents. This analysis took the public healthcare payer's perspective. Propensity score matching based on patient background, showed that, per hospitalization the medicine costs of the recommended group increased by 1,020 yen, however, the examination/treatment costs following falls decreased by 487 yen when compared with the non-recommended group. Overall, the recommended group incurred costs of 533 yen more per hospitalization for patients prescribed hypnotic agents compared to the non-recommended group, but the incidence of falls for the recommended group was significantly lower than that in the non-recommended group (1.9% vs. 6.3%; p<0.01). These results suggest that in order to prevent the incidence of falls by 1 case, it is necessary to increase costs by 12,086 yen which is the subthreshold cost for switching to the recommended medicine as standardization. The selection of recommended medicines may be a cost-effectiveness option compared with non-recommended medicines.

Effects of Thai Local Ingredient Odorants, Litsea cubeba and Garlic Essential Oils, on Brainwaves and Moods.

The functional food market is growing with a compound annual growth rate of 7.9%. Thai food recipes use several kinds of herbs. Lemongrass, garlic, and turmeric are ingredients used in Thai curry paste. Essential oils released in the preparation step create the flavor and fragrance of the famous tom yum and massaman dishes. While the biological activities of these ingredients have been investigated, including the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial activities, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the responses to the essential oils of these plants. To investigate the effects of essential oil inhalation on the brain and mood responses, electroencephalography was carried out during the non-task resting state, and self-assessment of the mood state was performed. The essential oils were prepared in several dilutions in the range of the supra-threshold level. The results show that Litsea cubeba oil inhalation showed a sedative effect, observed from alpha and beta wave power reductions. The frontal and temporal regions of the brain were involved in the wave alterations. Garlic oil increased the alpha wave power at lower concentrations; however, a sedative effect was also observed at higher concentrations. Lower dilution oil induced changes in the fast alpha activity in the frontal region. The alpha and beta wave powers were decreased with higher dilution oils, particularly in the temporal, parietal, and occipital regions. Both Litsea cubeba and turmeric oils resulted in better positive moods than garlic oil. Garlic oil caused more negative moods than the others. The psychophysiological activities and the related brain functions require further investigation. The knowledge obtained from this study may be used to design functional food products.

Cochlear Implantation Under Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in the Elderly: First 100 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes on a large series of elderly patients who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS). METHODS: Retrospective chart review on 100 consecutive elderly patients (> 65 years) who underwent CI with LA-CS at a tertiary care center between August 2013 and January 2020. An age-matched control group of 50 patients who underwent CI with general anesthesia (GA) are used for comparison. Outcomes measured included time in the operating room, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and rate of adverse events. RESULTS: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS was successfully performed in 99 (99%) patients. One patient requiring conversion to GA intraoperatively. No patients in the LA-CS group experienced cardiopulmonary adverse events; however, three patients (6%) in the GA group experienced minor events including atrial fibrillation and/or demand ischemia. Overnight observation in the hospital due to postoperative medical concerns or prolonged wake-up from anesthesia was required in one patient (1%) from the LA-CS cohort and 12 patients (24%) from the GA cohort. Perioperative adverse events exclusive to the LA-CS group included severe intraoperative vertigo (8%), temporary facial nerve paresis (3%), and wound infection (1%). The average amount of time spent in the operating room was 37 minutes less for procedures performed under LA-CS compared to GA (P < .05). The average amount of time in recovery was similar for both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS offers many benefits and is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective alternative to GA when performed by experienced CI surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E946-E951, 2021.

Cost Analysis of Intravenous Propofol Monotherapy versus Intravenous Combination Sedation in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

In outpatient gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, for which postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stays are expected to be brief, sedative choices by anesthesia providers can affect costs. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the cost of propofol monotherapy compared with combination sedation consisting of propofol with any of the following: midazolam, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and/or ketamine. A total of 277 patients who underwent outpatient GI endoscopy were included in this retrospective medical record review. Patients were separated into 2 groups: propofol monotherapy (n = 233) or combination sedation (n = 44). Outcomes included PACU length of stay, episodes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), PACU costs, and medication costs. The average PACU length of stay was 35.0 minutes for propofol monotherapy and 35.75 minutes for combination sedation (P = .918). The average PACU cost was $566.37 for propofol monotherapy and $578.44 for combination sedation (P = .918). The average cost for sedatives was $3.13 for propofol monotherapy and $3.34 for combination sedation (P = .964). There was 1 incident of nausea among all patients. There were no significant differences in PACU length of stay, PACU cost, medication costs, and episodes of PONV between propofol monotherapy and combination sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy.

Clinical and economic impact of the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in the intensive care unit compared to propofol.

Background Despite the advantages of dexmedetomidine (DEX) over propofol (PRO) including minimal respiratory depression and the potential for preventing and/or treating intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, PRO has been the preferred agent due to its lower cost. However, the acquisition cost of DEX has considerably decreased as a generic version of DEX has recently become available. Objective To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of DEX-based sedation compared to PRO in the ICU. Setting A retrospective cohort study of 86 ICU patients who received either DEX or PRO for a period ≥ 12 h. Method Patients were matched by age, sex, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and requirements of concomitant sedatives and opioids. Economic outcomes included the ICU and hospital costs as well as the cost of sedatives or combined sedatives and opioids per patient. Results There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital LOS and time on MV in both groups (median ICU LOS 7 [DEX] vs. 9 [PRO] days, p = 0.07; median hospital LOS 12 [DEX] vs. 14 [PRO] days, p = 0.261; median time of MV 144 [DEX] vs. 158 [PRO] hours, p = 0.176). DEX-based sedation compared to PRO was associated with similar ICU and hospital costs (US$ 67,561 vs. 78,429, p = 0.39; US$ 71,923 vs. 71,084, p = 0.1). Conclusion The clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with DEX- and PRO-based sedation were similar.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC. METHODS: Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

COVID-19 et pénurie de sédatifs, analgésiques et bloqueurs neuromusculaires: alternatives et principes de sédation aux soins intensifs et au bloc opératoire / COVID-19 and shortage of sedatives, pain relievers and blockers neuromuscular: alternatives and principles of sedation to care intensive and in the operating room

CONTEXTE: Le présent document ainsi que les constats qu'il énonce ont été rédigés en réponse à une interpellation du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux dans le contexte de l'urgence sanitaire liée à la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) au Québec. L'objectif est de réaliser une recension sommaire des données publiées et de mobiliser les savoirs clés afin d'informer les décideurs publics et les professionnels de la santé et des services sociaux. Vu la nature rapide de cette réponse, les constats ou les positions qui en découlent ne reposent pas sur un repérage exhaustif des données publiées, une évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des études avec une méthode systématique ou sur un processus de consultation élaboré. Dans les circonstances d'une telle urgence de santé publique, l'INESSS reste à l'affût de toutes nouvelles données susceptibles de lui faire modifier cette réponse rapide. PRÉSENTATION DE LA DEMANDE: La COVID-19 peut entraîner certaines complications graves qui nécessitent l'hospitalisation de la personne affectée, notamment le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aigu (ARDS) qui nécessite la mise en place d'une ventilation mécanique. Parmi les médicaments administrés dans le cadre d'une ventilation mécanique se trouve entre autres le propofol, un agent sédatif-hypnotique utilisé pour diminuer l'inconfort d'une intubation aux soins intensifs, ainsi que le rocuronium et le cistracurium, des bloqueurs neuromusculaires non dépolarisants qui permettent, dans certains cas, d'améliorer la synchronisation de la ventilation mécanique. Plusieurs de ces médicaments sont également employés au bloc opératoire, aux urgences, dans les unités de soins palliatifs ainsi que dans le contexte de l'aide médicale à mourir, ce qui crée une compétition entre les différents secteurs cliniques pour l'accès à ces molécules. La pandémie actuelle liée à la COVID-19 exerce une pression mondiale énorme sur les stocks de médicaments utilisés aux soins intensifs. À titre d'exemple, aux États-Unis, la demande pour les sédatifs les plus couramment utilisés aux soins intensifs et au bloc opératoire (propofol, dexmédétomidine, étomidate, kétamine, lorazépam, midazolam) a augmenté de 51 % durant le mois dernier [Phend, 2020]. Neuf grands centres hospitaliers européens ont annoncé, le 2 avril dernier, ne disposer que de 2 semaines de réserves de médicaments essentiels pour les soins critiques [Cheng, 2020]. Au Québec, le propofol est d'ailleurs en situation de rupture de stock jusqu'à la mi-avril auprès de son fabricant, la compagnie Baxter. Afin d'être en mesure de poursuivre la mise en place de la ventilation mécanique auprès des personnes qui le nécessitent, et ce, même en cas de pénurie de propofol, de cisatracurium ou de rocuronium, le MSSS a demandé à l'INESSS d'identifier les médicaments qui pourraient constituer des options alternatives à ces molécules aux soins intensifs et au bloc opératoire, tout en tenant compte des ruptures de stock actuelles et anticipées. MÉTHODOLOGIE Revue de littérature Questions d'évaluation : 1. Quelles sont les alternatives aux stratégies traditionnelles de sédation? 2. Quels sont les principes généraux de sédation qui favorisent l'usage optimal des médicaments? 3. Quelles stratégies de sédation permettent de limiter les risques de pénurie des médicaments? SOMMAIRE DES RÉSULTATS: Question 1: Quelles sont les alternatives aux stratégies traditionnelles de sédation? État actuel des connaissances scientifiques. Question 2: Quels sont les principes généraux de sédation qui favorisent l'usage optimal des médicaments? Question 3: Quelles stratégies de sédation permettent de limiter les risques de pénurie des médicaments?

Sedative and Anxiolytic Activities of Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill.: An Experimental Assessment in Mice.

Ethnobotanical field surveys revealed the use of fruits of Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill. for treating diabetes, burns, bronchial asthma, constipation, kidney stones, and rheumatic pains and as a sedative in Turkish folk medicine. This study aimed to verify the efficacy of the fruits of O. ficus indica experimentally and to define components responsible for the activity using bioassay-guided procedures. The crude methanolic extract of the fruits was sequentially fractionated into five subextracts: n-hexane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, n-butanol, and water. Further experiments were carried out on the most active subextract, that is, the ethyl acetate (EtOAc) subextract, which was further subjected to fractionation through successive column chromatographic applications on Sephadex LH-20. For activity assessment, each extract or fraction was submitted to bioassay systems; traction test, fireplace test, hole-board test, elevated plus-maze test, and open-field test were used for sedative and anxiolytic effects, and a thiopental-induced sleeping test was used for the hypnotic effect. Among the subextracts obtained from the methanolic extract, the EtOAc subextract showed significant sedative and anxiolytic effects in the bioassay systems. From the EtOAc subextract, major components were isolated, and their structures were determined as isorhamnetin, isorhamnetin 3-O-glucoside, isorhamnetin 3-O-rutinoside, and kaempferol 3-O-rutinoside using spectral techniques. In conclusion, this study confirmed the claimed use of the plant against anxiety in Turkish folk medicine.

Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy Performed in the Endoscopy Suite: A Resource Utilization Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the resource utilization of performing drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) procedures in an endoscopy suite (ES) setting as compared with the operating room (OR). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of DISE procedures performed by a single attending surgeon from 2016 to 2018. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing sleep endoscopy without concurrent surgical procedures were included. No exclusion criteria were incorporated. Analysis assessed for differences in procedure-related expenditures, patient characteristics, anesthesia and surgeon time, and access to care. RESULTS: A total of 87 sleep endoscopies were included: 65 (74.7%) performed in the ES and 22 (25.3%) in the OR. Patient groups were similar in age and apnea-hypopnea index severity (P > .05). Patient body mass index was significantly higher for the ES group (P = .03). Total facility time, postoperative recovery time, anesthesia care time, and time in the surgical room were significantly decreased in the ES setting (P < .01). Surgical time was similar between the groups (P > .05). For ES procedures, total cost was reduced by 74% (P < .01). DISE in the ES resulted in a mean $5080 less in health system charges versus the OR group (P < .01). There were no treatment-related complications in either setting. CONCLUSION: The resource utilization profile of performing DISE can be significantly improved by transferring these procedures from the OR to the ES setting.

Financial impact of an analgosedation protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in a cardiovascular intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of an analgosedation protocol in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) on daily doses and costs of analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic medications. METHODS: We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study in 363 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to our CICU from March 1, 2011, to April 13, 2013. On March 1, 2012, an analgosedation protocol was implemented. Patients in the pre-implementation group were managed at the cardiologist's discretion, which consisted of a continuous sedative-hypnotic approach and opioids as needed. Patients in the implementation group were managed using this protocol. RESULTS: The mean ± S.D. per-patient doses (mg/day) of propofol, lorazepam, and clonazepam decreased with the use of an analgosedation protocol (propofol 132,265.7 ± 12,951 versus 87,980.5 ± 10,564 [p = 0.03]; lorazepam 10.5 ± 7.3 versus 3.3 ± 4.0 [p < 0.001]; clonazepam 9.9 ± 8.3 versus 1.1 ± 0.5 [p = 0.03]). The mean daily cost of propofol and lorazepam also significantly decreased (33.5% reduction in propofol cost [p = 0.03]; 69.0% reduction in lorazepam cost [p < 0.001]). The per-patient dose and cost of fentanyl (mcg/day) declined with analgosedation protocol use (fentanyl 2,274.2 ± 2317.4 versus 1,026.7 ± 981.4 [p < 0.001]; 54.8% decrease in fentanyl cost [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSION: The implementation of an analgosedation protocol significantly decreased both the use and cost of propofol, lorazepam, and fentanyl. Further investigation of the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a critical care consultation service with implementation of an analgosedation protocol is warranted in the CICU.