Azzeddine Kermad1, Jacques Speltz2, Philipp M Lepper3, Andreas Meiser2, Guy Danziger3, Thilo Mertke2, Robert Bals3, Thomas Volk2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany. azzeddine.kermad@uks.eu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine V-Pulmonology, Allergology and Intensive Care Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: E Celis-Rodríguez; C Birchenall; M Á de la Cal; G Castorena Arellano; A Hernández; D Ceraso; J C Díaz Cortés; C Dueñas Castell; E J Jimenez; J C Meza; T Muñoz Martínez; J O Sosa García; C Pacheco Tovar; F Pálizas; J M Pardo Oviedo; D I Pinilla; F Raffán-Sanabria; N Raimondi; C Righy Shinotsuka; M Suárez; S Ugarte; S Rubiano Journal: Med Intensiva Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: Russel J Roberts; Jeffrey F Barletta; Jeffrey J Fong; Greg Schumaker; Philip J Kuper; Stella Papadopoulos; Dinesh Yogaratnam; Elise Kendall; Renee Xamplas; Anthony T Gerlach; Paul M Szumita; Kevin E Anger; Paul A Arpino; Stacey A Voils; Philip Grgurich; Robin Ruthazer; John W Devlin Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ralf Baron; Andreas Binder; Rolf Biniek; Stephan Braune; Hartmut Buerkle; Peter Dall; Sueha Demirakca; Rahel Eckardt; Verena Eggers; Ingolf Eichler; Ingo Fietze; Stephan Freys; Andreas Fründ; Lars Garten; Bernhard Gohrbandt; Irene Harth; Wolfgang Hartl; Hans-Jürgen Heppner; Johannes Horter; Ralf Huth; Uwe Janssens; Christine Jungk; Kristin Maria Kaeuper; Paul Kessler; Stefan Kleinschmidt; Matthias Kochanek; Matthias Kumpf; Andreas Meiser; Anika Mueller; Maritta Orth; Christian Putensen; Bernd Roth; Michael Schaefer; Rainhild Schaefers; Peter Schellongowski; Monika Schindler; Reinhard Schmitt; Jens Scholz; Stefan Schroeder; Gerhard Schwarzmann; Claudia Spies; Robert Stingele; Peter Tonner; Uwe Trieschmann; Michael Tryba; Frank Wappler; Christian Waydhas; Bjoern Weiss; Guido Weisshaar Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2015-11-12