ICU sedation with sevoflurane

2022 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 181
Author(s):  
J. Robert Sneyd
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 089719002110215
Author(s):  
Sara A. Atyia ◽  
Keaton S. Smetana ◽  
Minh C. Tong ◽  
Molly J. Thompson ◽  
Kari M. Cape ◽  
...  

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that produces dose-dependent sedation, anxiolysis, and analgesia without respiratory depression. Due to these ideal sedative properties, there has been increased interest in utilizing dexmedetomidine as a first-line sedative for critically ill patients requiring light sedation. Objective: To evaluate the ability to achieve goal intensive care unit (ICU) sedation before and after an institutional change of dosing from actual (ABW) to adjusted (AdjBW) body weight in obese patients on dexmedetomidine. Methods: This study included patients ≥ 18 years old, admitted to a surgical or medical ICU, required dexmedetomidine for at least 8 hours as a single continuous infusion sedative, and weighed ≥ 120% of ideal body weight. Percentage of RASS measurements within goal range (−1 to +1) during the first 48 hours after initiation of dexmedetomidine as the sole sedative agent or until discontinuation dosed on ABW compared to AdjBW was evaluated. Results: 100 patients were included in the ABW cohort and 100 in the AdjBW cohort. The median dosing weight was significantly higher in the ABW group (95.9 [78.9-119.5] vs 82.2 [72.1-89.8] kg; p = 0.001). There was no statistical difference in percent of RASS measurements in goal range (61.5% vs 69.6%, p = 0.267) in patients that received dexmedetomidine dosed based on ABW versus AdjBW. Conclusion: Dosing dexmedetomidine using AdjBW in obese critically ill patients for ongoing ICU sedation resulted in no statistical difference in the percent of RASS measurements within goal when compared to ABW dosing. Further studies are warranted.


2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. A159
Author(s):  
Sheilah Smok-Pearsall
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujoy Banik ◽  
Ashish Bindra ◽  
Varun Jain ◽  
Keshav Goyal ◽  
Niraj Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1141-1143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sangeeta Mehta ◽  
Claudia Spies ◽  
Yahya Shehabi
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110510
Author(s):  
Evan Atchley ◽  
Eljim Tesoro ◽  
Robert Meyer ◽  
Alexia Bauer ◽  
Mark Pulver ◽  
...  

Background Ketamine has seen increased use for sedation in the intensive care unit. In contrast to propofol or dexmedetomidine, ketamine may provide a positive effect on hemodynamics. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the development of clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) between critically ill adults receiving sedation with ketamine and either propofol or dexmedetomidine. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to an intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2016 and January 2021. Results Patients in the ketamine group (n = 78) had significantly less clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia compared with those receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine (n = 156) (34.6% vs 63.5%; P < 0.001). Patients receiving ketamine also experienced smaller degree of hypotension observed by percent decrease in mean arterial pressure (25.3% [17.4] vs 33.8% [14.5]; P < 0.001) and absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure (26.5 [23.8] vs 42.0 [37.8] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and bradycardia (15.5 [24.3] vs 32.0 [23.0] reduction in beats per minute; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression modeling, receipt of propofol or dexmedetomidine was the only independent predictor of a negative hemodynamic event (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 6.1; P < 0.001). Conclusion and Relevance Ketamine was associated with less clinically relevant hypotension or bradycardia when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine, in addition to a smaller absolute decrease in hemodynamic parameters. The clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 119 (4) ◽  
pp. 1151-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard I. Hall ◽  
Dean Sandham ◽  
Pierre Cardinal ◽  
Martin Tweeddale ◽  
David Moher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 291-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prerana N. Shah ◽  
Vaibhao Dongre ◽  
Vijay Patil ◽  
Sarla Pandya ◽  
Ashish Mungantiwar ◽  
...  

Critical Care ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Robertshaw
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 1266-1278
Author(s):  
Gilles L. Fraser ◽  
Richard Riker

This feature examines the impact of pharmacologic interventions on the treatment of the critically ill patient—an area of health care that has become increasingly complex. It will review recent advances (including evolving and controversial data) in drug therapy for adult ICU patients and assess these new modalities in terms of clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Direct questions or comments to Gil Fraser, PharmD, at [email protected] .


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document