Prolonged sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to intravenous sedation in critically ill patients - A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Volatile anesthetics are used more commonly for sedation in the intensive-care-unit (ICU). However, evidence for long-term use remains low. We therefore conducted a randomized-controlled trial comparing sevoflurane with intravenous sedation with particular focus on efficacy and safety. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized-controlled phase-IIb monocentric clinical-trial ICU patients requiring at least 48 h of sedation were randomized to receive sevoflurane (S) or propofol/midazolam (P). Sedation quality was monitored using the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale. Following termination of sedation, the time to spontaneous breathing and extubation, opioid consumption, hemodynamics, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: 79 patients were eligible to randomization. Sedation quality was comparable between sevoflurane (n = 39) and propofol (n = 40). However, the use of sevoflurane lead to a reduction in time to spontaneous breathing (26 min vs. 375 min, P < 0.001). Patients sedated with propofol had lower opioid requirements (remifentanil:400 µg/h vs. 500 µg/h, P = 0.007; sufentanil:40 µg/h vs. 30 µg/h, P = 0.007) while hemodynamics, LOS or the occurrence of adverse events did not differ. CONCLUSION: ICU patients sedated with sevoflurane >48 h may return to spontaneous breathing faster, while the quality of sedation is comparable to a propofol-based sedation regime. Sevoflurane might be considered to be safe for long-term sedation in this patient population, while being non-inferior compared to propofol.

Pain management in surgical intensive care patients: A retrospective observational research.

Sepsis and septic shock are the most common causes of death in non-cardiac surgical intensive care units (ICU). Adequate analgesia is essential to achieve positive outcomes. There were differences in pain management between patients with and without sepsis or septic shock. The release of inflammatory mediators, especially cytokines, in sepsis or septic shock decreases the pain threshold. Septic intensive care patients probably require higher doses of opioids than do non-septic patients. A retrospective observational study was carried out in an anesthesiologic intensive care unit from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the following criteria: sepsis ("yes/no" and communication ability "yes/no"). After adjusting for the number of cases using the pairing method, a total of 356 patients were recruited. The endpoint of our study was defined as the "total opioid dose". Statistical evaluations were performed using t tests and 2-factor analysis of variance. There was a significant difference in opioid doses between communicative and non-communicative ICU patients F(1, 352) = 55.102, P < .001). This effect was observed in the ICU patients with and without sepsis. The mean sufentanil dose was significantly higher in non-communicative patients than in communicative patients group (E(1, 352) = 51.435, P < .001, partial ƞ2 = 0.144). The effect of higher opioid- (F(1, 352) = 1.941, P = .161) and sufentanil (F(1, 352) = 1.798, P = .342) requirement was not statistically significant due to sepsis. The hypothesis that sepsis decreases the pain threshold could not be proven in this study. The effect of a higher opioid requirement is not directly caused by sepsis but by communication ability. Furthermore, we were able to show through our investigations and especially through the data of the pain recording instruments that the septic and non-septic intensive care patients receive sufficient pain therapy treatment in our ICU. Regular pain evaluations should be performed on patients in the ICUs who are able to communicate and those who are not.

Sepsis Diagnostics: Intensive Care Scoring Systems Superior to MicroRNA Biomarker Testing.

Sepsis represents a serious medical problem accounting for numerous deaths of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). An early, sensitive, and specific diagnosis is considered a key element for improving the outcome of sepsis patients. In addition to classical laboratory markers, ICU scoring systems and serum miRNAs are discussed as potential sepsis biomarkers. In the present prospective observational study, the suitability of miRNAs in sepsis diagnosis was tested based on proper validated and normalized data (i.e., absolute quantification by means of Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)) in direct comparison to classical sepsis markers and ICU scores within the same patient cohort. Therefore, blood samples of septic intensive care patients (n = 12) taken at day of admission at ICU were compared to non-septic intensive care patients (n = 12) and a healthy control group (n = 12). Our analysis indicates that all tested biomarkers have only a moderate informative power and do not allow an unequivocal differentiation between septic and non-septic ICU patients. In conclusion, there is no standalone laboratory parameter that enables a reliable diagnosis of sepsis. miRNAs are not superior to classical parameters in this respect. It seems recommendable to measure multiple parameters and scores and to interpret them with regard to the clinical presentation.