Inge K Herrmann1, Maricela Castellon, David E Schwartz, Melanie Hasler, Martin Urner, Guochang Hu, Richard D Minshall, Beatrice Beck-Schimmer. 1. * Research Associate, Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich and Institute of Physiology and Zurich Centre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. † Research Assistant, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, and Department of Pharmacology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. ‡ Full Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago. § Technician, Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich and Institute of Physiology and Zurich Centre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich. ‖Research Associate, Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich and Institute of Physiology and Zurich Centre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich. # Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, and Department of Pharmacology, University of Illinois at Chicago. ** Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, and Department of Pharmacology, University of Illinois at Chicago. †† Full Professor, Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich and Institute of Physiology and Zurich Centre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis remains a leading cause of death in intensive care units. There is growing evidence that volatile anesthetics have beneficial immunomodulatory effects on complex inflammation-mediated conditions. The authors investigated the effect of volatile anesthetics on the overall survival of mice in a sepsis model of cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). METHODS: Mice (N = 12 per treatment group) were exposed to anesthetic concentrations of desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane either during induction of sepsis or when the mice showed pronounced symptoms of inflammation. Overall survival, as well as organ function and inflammation was compared with the CLP group without intervention. RESULTS: With desflurane and sevoflurane conditioning (1.2 minimal alveolar concentration for 2 h immediately after induction of CLP) overall survival was improved to 58% and 83%, respectively, compared with 17% in the untreated CLP group. Isoflurane did not significantly affect outcome. Application of sevoflurane 24 h after sepsis induction significantly improved overall survival to 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the volatile anesthetics desflurane and sevoflurane reduced CLP-induced mortality. Anesthesia may be a critical confounder when comparing study data where different anesthesia protocols were used.
BACKGROUND:Sepsis remains a leading cause of death in intensive care units. There is growing evidence that volatile anesthetics have beneficial immunomodulatory effects on complex inflammation-mediated conditions. The authors investigated the effect of volatile anesthetics on the overall survival of mice in a sepsis model of cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). METHODS:Mice (N = 12 per treatment group) were exposed to anesthetic concentrations of desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane either during induction of sepsis or when the mice showed pronounced symptoms of inflammation. Overall survival, as well as organ function and inflammation was compared with the CLP group without intervention. RESULTS: With desflurane and sevoflurane conditioning (1.2 minimal alveolar concentration for 2 h immediately after induction of CLP) overall survival was improved to 58% and 83%, respectively, compared with 17% in the untreated CLP group. Isoflurane did not significantly affect outcome. Application of sevoflurane 24 h after sepsis induction significantly improved overall survival to 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the volatile anesthetics desflurane and sevoflurane reduced CLP-induced mortality. Anesthesia may be a critical confounder when comparing study data where different anesthesia protocols were used.
Authors: Andreas Redel; Jan Stumpner; Tobias Tischer-Zeitz; Markus Lange; Thorsten M Smul; Christopher Lotz; Norbert Roewer; Franz Kehl Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2009-07-13
Authors: Karine Julier; Rafaela da Silva; Carlos Garcia; Lukas Bestmann; Philippe Frascarolo; Andreas Zollinger; Pierre-Guy Chassot; Edith R Schmid; Marko I Turina; Ludwig K von Segesser; Thomas Pasch; Donat R Spahn; Michael Zaugg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Sophia Koutsogiannaki; Matthew M Schaefers; Toshiaki Okuno; Mai Ohba; Takehiko Yokomizo; Gregory P Priebe; James A DiNardo; Soriano G Sulpicio; Koichi Yuki Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: M Urner; M Schläpfer; I K Herrmann; M Hasler; R R Schimmer; C Booy; B Roth Z'graggen; H Rehrauer; F Aigner; R D Minshall; W J Stark; B Beck-Schimmer Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Thomas J Gerber; Valérie C O Fehr; Suellen D S Oliveira; Guochang Hu; Randal Dull; Marcelo G Bonini; Beatrice Beck-Schimmer; Richard D Minshall Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.892