Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial.
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Inhalation sedation
Isoflurane
Propofol
Ventilator-induced lung injury
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2022
20 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
accepted:
02
12
2022
entrez:
20
12
2022
pubmed:
21
12
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines. An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency's EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines.
METHODS
METHODS
An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO
RESULTS
RESULTS
Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency's EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36538243
doi: 10.1186/s13613-022-01090-w
pii: 10.1186/s13613-022-01090-w
pmc: PMC9765364
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
116Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Anesth Analg. 2017 Aug;125(2):491-498
pubmed: 28277329
Anesth Analg. 1998 Nov;87(5):1164-9
pubmed: 9806702
Clin Exp Immunol. 2009 Feb;155(2):224-30
pubmed: 19032551
Clin Exp Immunol. 2015 Sep;181(3):468-79
pubmed: 25925908
Eur Respir J. 2021 Jun 10;57(6):
pubmed: 33334944
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):788-800
pubmed: 26903337
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1334-49
pubmed: 10793167
Anesth Analg. 2017 Jan;124(1):194-203
pubmed: 27782948
Anesthesiology. 1987 Dec;67(6):910-5
pubmed: 3688534
Anesthesiology. 1984 Apr;60(4):304-8
pubmed: 6703386
Anesthesiology. 2009 Dec;111(6):1238-48
pubmed: 19934867
Anesth Analg. 2012 Apr;114(4):747-56
pubmed: 22383671
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Dec;46(12):2342-2356
pubmed: 33170331
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2015 Nov;50(11-12):698-703
pubmed: 26650949
Br J Anaesth. 1998 Dec;81(6):850-3
pubmed: 10211007
JAMA. 2012 Jun 20;307(23):2526-33
pubmed: 22797452
Anesth Analg. 2007 Mar;104(3):638-45
pubmed: 17312223
Crit Care Med. 2004 Nov;32(11):2241-6
pubmed: 15640636
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Sep;38(9):1548-55
pubmed: 22711173
Anesthesiology. 2006 Mar;104(3):511-7
pubmed: 16508399
Anesthesiology. 2015 Aug;123(2):377-88
pubmed: 26068207
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar 15;195(6):792-800
pubmed: 27611637
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Nov;9(11):1231-1240
pubmed: 34454654
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Jan;33(1):6-13
pubmed: 25793760