BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that emergence from sedation in postoperative patients in the intensive care unit would be faster and more predictable after sedation with desflurane than with propofol. METHODS:Sixty patients after major operations were allocated randomly to receive either desflurane or propofol. The target level of sedation was defined by a bispectral index(TM) (BIS(TM)) of 60. All patients were receiving mechanical ventilation of the lungs for 10.6 (SD 5.5) h depending on their clinical state. The study drugs were stopped abruptly in a calm atmosphere with the fresh gas flow set to 6 litres min(-1), and the time until the BIS increased above 75 was measured (t(BIS75), the main objective measure). After extubation of the trachea, when the patients could state their birth date, they were asked to memorize five words. RESULTS:Emergence times were shorter (P<0.001) after desflurane than after propofol (25th, 50th and 75th percentiles): t(BIS75), 3.0, 4.5 and 5.8 vs 5.2, 7.7 and 10.3 min; time to first response, 3.7, 5.0 and 5.7 vs 6.9, 8.6 and 10.7 min; time to eyes open, 4.7, 5.7 and 8.0 vs 7.3, 10.5 and 20.8 min; time to squeeze hand, 5.1, 6.5 and 10.2 vs 9.2, 11.1 and 21.1 min; time to tracheal extubation, 5.8, 7.7 and 10.0 vs 9.7, 13.5 and 18.9 min; time to saying their birth date, 7.7, 10.5 and 15.5 vs 13.0, 19.4 and 31.8 min. Patients who received desflurane recalled significantly more of the five words. We did not observe major side-effects and there were no haemodynamic or laboratory changes except for a more marked increase in systolic blood pressure after stopping desflurane. Using a low fresh gas flow (air/oxygen 1 litre min(-1)), pure drug costs were lower for desflurane than for propofol (95 vs 171 Euros day(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: We found shorter and more predictable emergence times and quicker mental recovery after short-term postoperative sedation with desflurane compared with propofol. Desflurane allows precise timing of extubation, shortening the time during which the patient needs very close attention.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that emergence from sedation in postoperative patients in the intensive care unit would be faster and more predictable after sedation with desflurane than with propofol. METHODS: Sixty patients after major operations were allocated randomly to receive either desflurane or propofol. The target level of sedation was defined by a bispectral index(TM) (BIS(TM)) of 60. All patients were receiving mechanical ventilation of the lungs for 10.6 (SD 5.5) h depending on their clinical state. The study drugs were stopped abruptly in a calm atmosphere with the fresh gas flow set to 6 litres min(-1), and the time until the BIS increased above 75 was measured (t(BIS75), the main objective measure). After extubation of the trachea, when the patients could state their birth date, they were asked to memorize five words. RESULTS: Emergence times were shorter (P<0.001) after desflurane than after propofol (25th, 50th and 75th percentiles): t(BIS75), 3.0, 4.5 and 5.8 vs 5.2, 7.7 and 10.3 min; time to first response, 3.7, 5.0 and 5.7 vs 6.9, 8.6 and 10.7 min; time to eyes open, 4.7, 5.7 and 8.0 vs 7.3, 10.5 and 20.8 min; time to squeeze hand, 5.1, 6.5 and 10.2 vs 9.2, 11.1 and 21.1 min; time to tracheal extubation, 5.8, 7.7 and 10.0 vs 9.7, 13.5 and 18.9 min; time to saying their birth date, 7.7, 10.5 and 15.5 vs 13.0, 19.4 and 31.8 min. Patients who received desflurane recalled significantly more of the five words. We did not observe major side-effects and there were no haemodynamic or laboratory changes except for a more marked increase in systolic blood pressure after stopping desflurane. Using a low fresh gas flow (air/oxygen 1 litre min(-1)), pure drug costs were lower for desflurane than for propofol (95 vs 171 Euros day(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: We found shorter and more predictable emergence times and quicker mental recovery after short-term postoperative sedation with desflurane compared with propofol. Desflurane allows precise timing of extubation, shortening the time during which the patient needs very close attention.
Authors: Hagen Bomberg; Marcel Wessendorf; Martin Bellgardt; Max Veddeler; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Thomas Volk; Heinrich V Groesdonk; Andreas Meiser Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Jennifer Herzog-Niescery; Hans-Martin Seipp; Thomas Peter Weber; Martin Bellgardt Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Jörg Martin; Anja Heymann; Katrin Bäsell; Ralf Baron; Rolf Biniek; Hartmut Bürkle; Peter Dall; Christine Dictus; Verena Eggers; Ingolf Eichler; Lothar Engelmann; Lars Garten; Wolfgang Hartl; Ulrike Haase; Ralf Huth; Paul Kessler; Stefan Kleinschmidt; Wolfgang Koppert; Franz-Josef Kretz; Heinz Laubenthal; Guenter Marggraf; Andreas Meiser; Edmund Neugebauer; Ulrike Neuhaus; Christian Putensen; Michael Quintel; Alexander Reske; Bernard Roth; Jens Scholz; Stefan Schröder; Dierk Schreiter; Jürgen Schüttler; Gerhard Schwarzmann; Robert Stingele; Peter Tonner; Philip Tränkle; Rolf Detlef Treede; Tomislav Trupkovic; Michael Tryba; Frank Wappler; Christian Waydhas; Claudia Spies Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2010-02-02
Authors: Marc P Steurer; Martina A Steurer; Werner Baulig; Tobias Piegeler; Martin Schläpfer; Donat R Spahn; Volkmar Falk; Pamela Dreessen; Oliver M Theusinger; Edith R Schmid; David Schwartz; Thomas A Neff; Beatrice Beck-Schimmer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 9.097