Dataset Information

Use of volatile agents for sedation in the intensive care unit: A national survey in France.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current intensive care unit (ICU) sedation guidelines recommend strategies using non-benzodiazepine sedatives. This survey was undertaken to explore inhaled ICU sedation practice in France.

Methods

In this national survey, medical directors of French adult ICUs were contacted by phone or email between July and August 2019. ICU medical directors were questioned about the characteristics of their department, their knowledge on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled sedation use in their department.

Results

Among the 374 ICUs contacted, 187 provided responses (50%). Most ICU directors (73%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 21% used inhaled sedation in their unit, mostly with the Anaesthetic Conserving Device (AnaConDa, Sedana Medical). Most respondents had used volatile agents for sedation for <5 years (63%) and in <20 patients per year (75%), with their main indications being: failure of intravenous sedation, severe asthma or bronchial obstruction, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sevoflurane and isoflurane were mainly used (88% and 20%, respectively). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were: "device not available" (40%), "lack of medical interest" (37%), "lack of familiarity or knowledge about the technique" (35%) and "elevated cost" (21%). Most respondents (80%) were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 75% stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation.

Conclusion

This survey highlights the widespread knowledge about inhaled ICU sedation in France but shows its limited use to date. Differences in education and knowledge, as well as the recent and relatively scarce literature on the use of volatile agents in the ICU, might explain the diverse practices that were observed. The low rate of mild adverse effects, as perceived by respondents, and the users' satisfaction, are promising for this potentially important tool for ICU sedation.

SUBMITTER: Blondonnet R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8049230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVolatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may reduce the number of adverse events and improve patient outcomes compared with intravenous (IV) sedation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of volatile and IV sedation in adult ICU patients.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Web of Science databases for all randomized trials comparing volatile sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) with IV sedation in terms of awakening and extubation times, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and pharmacologic end-organ effects.ResultsThirteen trials with a total of 1027 patients were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time [mean difference (MD), -80.0 minutes; 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), -134.5 to -25.6; P = .004] and extubation time (MD, -196.0 minutes; 95% CIs, -305.2 to -86.8; P < .001) compared with IV sedation (midazolam or propofol). No differences in the lengths of ICU and hospital stay were noted between the 2 groups. In the analysis of cardiac effects of sedation from 5 studies, patients who received volatile sedation showed lower serum troponin levels 6 hours after ICU admission than patients who received IV sedation (P < .05). The effect size of troponin was largest between 12 and 24 hours after ICU admission (MD, -0.27 μg/L; 95% CIs, -0.44 to -0.09; P = .003).ConclusionCompared with IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times. Considering the difference in serum troponin levels between both arms, volatile anesthetics might have a myocardial protective effect after cardiac surgery even at a subanesthetic dose. Because the included studies used small sample sizes with high heterogeneity, further large, high-quality prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation.MethodsWe designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU.ResultsAmong the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients.ConclusionThe use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.