Halogenated anesthetics vs intravenous hypnotics for short and long term sedation in the intensive care unit: A meta-analysis / Anestésicos halogenados vs. hipnóticos intravenosos para sedación a corto y largo plazo en la unidad de cuidados intensivos: un metaanálisis

Objective To comprehensively assess peer-reviewed studies using volatile (VA) or intravenous (i/v) anesthetics for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs), with the hypothesis that the type of sedation may have an impact on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials. Setting ICUs. Participants Critically ill and postoperative patients. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Studies comparing VA versus i/v anesthetics used in the ICU settings were independently systematically searched. Finally, 15 studies (1520 patients of predominantly surgical profile needed VA sedation for less than 96h) were included. VA had no impact on all-cause mortality (very low quality of evidence, Odds Ratio=0.82 [0.60–1.12], p=0.20). However, VA were associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.03) and increase in ventilator-free days (p<0.001). VA also reduced postoperative levels of cardiac troponin (24h), time to extubation (p<0.001) and awakening (p=0.04). Conclusions In this meta-analysis, volatile sedation vs propofol caused the increase in ventilator-free days, the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation and the troponin release in medical or surgical ICU patients, while in surgical ICU patients the time to awakening was shortened (AU)

Objetivos Evaluar exhaustivamente los estudios revisados por pares que utilizan anestésicos volátiles (AV) o intravenosos (iv) para sedación en unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI), con la hipótesis de que el tipo de sedación puede tener un impacto en la supervivencia y otros resultados clínicamente relevantes. Diseño Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos aleatorizados y no aleatorizados. Ámbito UCI. Pacientes Se incluyeron críticamente enfermos y postoperatorios. Intervenciones Ninguna. Mediciones y resultados principales Los estudios que comparaban los AV vs. los anestésicos iv utilizados en la UCI se buscaron de forma independiente y sistemática. Finalmente, se incluyeron 15 estudios (1.520 pacientes de perfil predominantemente quirúrgico necesitaron sedación de AV durante menos de 96h). El AV no tuvo impacto en la mortalidad por cualquier causa (calidad de los datos probatorios muy baja, Odds Ratio=0,82 [0,60-1,12], p=0,20). Sin embargo, el AV se asoció con una reducción de la duración de la ventilación mecánica (p=0,03) y aumento de los días sin ventilación mecánica (p<0,001). La AV también redujo los niveles postoperatorios de troponina cardíaca (24 horas), el tiempo hasta la extubación (p<0,001) y el despertar (p=0,04). Conclusiones En este metaanálisis, la sedación volátil vs. propofol causó el aumento de los días sin ventilación, la reducción de la duración de la ventilación mecánica, el tiempo hasta la extubación y la liberación de troponina en pacientes de la UCI médica o quirúrgica, mientras que en pacientes de la UCI quirúrgica el tiempo hasta el despertar se acortó (AU)

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

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively assess peer-reviewed studies using volatile (VA) or intravenous (i/v) anesthetics for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs), with the hypothesis that the type of sedation may have an impact on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials. SETTING: ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill and postoperative patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Studies comparing VA versus i/v anesthetics used in the ICU settings were independently systematically searched. Finally, 15 studies (1520 patients of predominantly surgical profile needed VA sedation for less than 96h) were included. VA had no impact on all-cause mortality (very low quality of evidence, Odds Ratio=0.82 [0.60-1.12], p=0.20). However, VA were associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.03) and increase in ventilator-free days (p<0.001). VA also reduced postoperative levels of cardiac troponin (24h), time to extubation (p<0.001) and awakening (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, volatile sedation vs propofol caused the increase in ventilator-free days, the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation and the troponin release in medical or surgical ICU patients, while in surgical ICU patients the time to awakening was shortened.