Comparison of isoflurane and propofol sedation in critically ill COVID-19 patients-a retrospective chart review.

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome). METHODS: Charts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded. RESULTS: Patients' age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60-68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21-50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml∙h-1; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg∙hour-1∙kg-1ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720-960] versus 1080 [720-1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (- 4.0 [- 4.0 to - 3.0] versus - 3.0 [- 3.6 to - 2.5]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Reflection efficiencies of AnaConDa-S and AnaConDa-100 for isoflurane under dry laboratory and simulated clinical conditions: a bench study using a test lung.

Background: Adequate sedation is important for the treatment of ICU patients. AnaConDa (Anesthetic-Conserving-Device; ACD; Sedana Medical, Sweden), connected between ventilator and the patient, retains isoflurane during expiration, and releases it back during inspiration. The reflection efficiency (RefEff) corresponds to the percentage of expired anesthetic molecules that are re-inspired. We compared RefEff of AnaConDa-S (ACD-50) and AnaConDa-100 (ACD-100) under laboratory (DRY) and simulated clinical conditions (CLIN) using a test lung.Methods: Measurements were made under DRY and CLIN, with different tidal volumes (TV: 300 mL & 500 mL) and infusion rates (0.5-10 mL·h-1). RefEff was calculated from the isoflurane concentration in the test-lung (CISO) and plotted against the anesthetic vapor volume exhaled in one breath (V-exh = CISO·TV).Results: DRY: RefEff of both devices was ≈90% over a wide range of V-exh, but decreased when V-exh exceeded 5-7 mL (ACD-50) or 10-15 mL (ACD-100).CLIN: RefEff of ACD-50 was 70-80% (ACD-100: 80-90%), decreasing gradually with increasing V-exh. For 1 Vol.% isoflurane at TV500, the infusion rate with ACD-50 was twofold higher compared to ACD-100 (4 versus 2 mL·h-1).Conclusion: Under DRY and concentrations <1.5 Vol.%, RefEff of both devices is around 90%. Under CLIN, ACD-100 performs better with RefEff between 80% and 90% (ACD-50:70-80%), decreasing with increased vapor volume exhaled in one breath.