Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Compared With Propofol or Dexmedetomidine as Continuous ICU Sedation

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.

Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine Dosing in Obese Critically Ill Patients

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.

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

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.