Dataset Information

Comparison of isoflurane and propofol sedation in critically ill COVID-19 patients-a retrospective chart review.

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.

SUBMITTER: Kermad A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8225486 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTherapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsWe performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used.ResultsIn total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature.ConclusionThe global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.

Project description:BackgroundCorticoid therapy has been recommended in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, yet its efficacy is currently still under evaluation. We investigated the effect of corticosteroid treatment on 90-day mortality and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in severe patients with COVID-19.Methods294 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were recruited between December 30, 2019 and February 19, 2020. Logistic regression, Cox proportional-hazards model and marginal structural modeling (MSM) were applied to evaluate the associations between corticosteroid use and corresponding outcome variables.ResultsOut of the 294 critically ill patients affected by COVID-19, 183 (62.2%) received corticosteroids, with methylprednisolone as the most frequently administered corticosteroid (175 accounting for 96%). Of those treated with corticosteroids, 69.4% received corticosteroid prior to ICU admission. When adjustments and subgroup analysis were not performed, no significant associations between corticosteroids use and 90-day mortality or SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance were found. However, when stratified analysis based on corticosteroid initiation time was performed, there was a significant correlation between corticosteroid use (≤ 3 day after ICU admission) and 90-day mortality (logistic regression adjusted for baseline: OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.17-17.25, p = 0.025; Cox adjusted for baseline and time varying variables: HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.94-7.82, p < 0.001; MSM adjusted for baseline and time-dependent variants: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.16-4.65, p = 0.017). No association was found between corticosteroid use and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance even after stratification by initiation time of corticosteroids and adjustments for confounding factors (corticosteroids use ≤ 3 days initiation vs no corticosteroids use) using MSM were performed.ConclusionsEarly initiation of corticosteroid use (≤ 3 days after ICU admission) was associated with an increased 90-day mortality. Early use of methylprednisolone in the ICU is therefore not recommended in patients with severe COVID-19.