Ramírez GHA, Cerda AJM, Chávez PC, Sánchez NVM

Language: Spanish
References: 5
Page: 138-141
PDF size: 189.05 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Sedation is essential for an optimal outcome in the critical care patient with mechanical ventilation. Drug shortages have been common during the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly in those medications employed for sedation and analgesia. This has led to a search for alternatives to traditional intravenous sedation, one of which is volatile sedation. Evidence around volatile sedation in the critical care patient supports its employment in ARDS. Multiples studies have shown a positive effect on the gaseous exchange, and a diminishment in both alveolar edema and lung inflammation. A significant decrease in awakening time from sedation has also been reported. We conducted a retrospective, comparative, longitudinal cohort study in a single intensive care unit, retrieving the medical records of critical COVID-19 patients which needed mechanical ventilation, and which were administered volatile sedation alongside intravenous sedation. This group was compared to a randomly selected group of critical COVID-19 patients with mechanical ventilation which were administered exclusively intravenous sedation. The analyzed trial period comprised from January 01, to June 30, 2021. The main outcome was number of days on mechanical ventilation, with secondary outcomes of length of stay on the ICU, length of stay in the hospital, incidence of ventilation associated pneumonia and both 30-day and overall mortality. The medical records of 43 patients which received mixed sedation were identified, with 36 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The average time of administration of sevoflurane was six days in the population studied. This group was compared to 42 patients with exclusive intravenous sedation. Baseline characteristics were similar among the two groups, except for a significant trend towards younger age in the sevoflurane group. There was a significant difference on length of stay in the hospital, with sevoflurane being associated with a shorter stay compared to exclusive intravenous sedation. None of the other analyzed outcomes showed a significant difference. Volatile sedation is a useful tool with multiple benefits for the critical care patients with a need for mechanical ventilation. The current study demonstrates a significant difference in the length of stay in the hospital, but more studies are needed with a greater sample size, randomization, and standardized criteria for the administration of the intervention to reduce the risk of bias and validate these findings.

REFERENCES

1. Jerath A, Ferguson N, Cuthbertson B. Inhalational volatile-based sedation for COVID-19 pneumonia and ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(8):1563-1566.

2. Devlin J, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, Needham D, Slooter A, Pandharipande P, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9):e825-e873.

3. Kim H, Lee J, Kim H, Kim J. Volatile sedation in the Intensive Care Unit. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(49):e8976.

4. Meiser A. Inhaled sedation in the intensive care unit. Springer; 2019.

5. Jabaudon M, Boucher P, Imhoff E, Chabanne R, Faure J, Roszyk L, et al. Sevoflurane for sedation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. a randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(6):792-800.