Cargando…

Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Becher, Tobias, Meiser, Andreas, Guenther, Ulf, Bellgardt, Martin, Wallenborn, Jan, Kogelmann, Klaus, Bracht, Hendrik, Falthauser, Andreas, Nilsson, Jonas, Sackey, Peter, Kellner, Patrick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9765364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36538243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-01090-w
_version_ 1784853468896296960
author Becher, Tobias
Meiser, Andreas
Guenther, Ulf
Bellgardt, Martin
Wallenborn, Jan
Kogelmann, Klaus
Bracht, Hendrik
Falthauser, Andreas
Nilsson, Jonas
Sackey, Peter
Kellner, Patrick
author_facet Becher, Tobias
Meiser, Andreas
Guenther, Ulf
Bellgardt, Martin
Wallenborn, Jan
Kogelmann, Klaus
Bracht, Hendrik
Falthauser, Andreas
Nilsson, Jonas
Sackey, Peter
Kellner, Patrick
author_sort Becher, Tobias
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines. METHODS: An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO(2)) to inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO(2)), PaO(2)/FiO(2), of ≤ 300 mmHg at baseline were included (n = 162). The primary endpoint was the change in PaO(2)/FiO(2) between baseline and the end of study sedation. A subgroup analysis in patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg was performed (n = 82). RESULTS: Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO(2)/FiO(2) was 210 ± 79 mmHg in the isoflurane group (n = 41) and 185 ± 87 mmHg in the propofol group (n = 44; p = 0.411). In the subgroup of patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg, PaO(2)/FiO(2) increase between baseline and end of study sedation was 152 ± 33 to 186 ± 54 mmHg for isoflurane (n = 37), and 150 ± 38 to 214 ± 85 mmHg for propofol (n = 45; p = 0.029). On day seven, PaO(2)/FiO(2) was 198 ± 69 mmHg in patients randomized to isoflurane (n = 20) and 174 ± 106 mmHg in patients randomized to propofol (n = 20; p = 0.933). Both for the whole study population and for the subgroup with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg, no significant between-group differences were observed for PaCO(2), pH and tidal volume as well as 30-day mortality and ventilator-free days alive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency’s EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9765364
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97653642022-12-21 Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial Becher, Tobias Meiser, Andreas Guenther, Ulf Bellgardt, Martin Wallenborn, Jan Kogelmann, Klaus Bracht, Hendrik Falthauser, Andreas Nilsson, Jonas Sackey, Peter Kellner, Patrick Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines. METHODS: An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO(2)) to inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO(2)), PaO(2)/FiO(2), of ≤ 300 mmHg at baseline were included (n = 162). The primary endpoint was the change in PaO(2)/FiO(2) between baseline and the end of study sedation. A subgroup analysis in patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg was performed (n = 82). RESULTS: Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO(2)/FiO(2) was 210 ± 79 mmHg in the isoflurane group (n = 41) and 185 ± 87 mmHg in the propofol group (n = 44; p = 0.411). In the subgroup of patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg, PaO(2)/FiO(2) increase between baseline and end of study sedation was 152 ± 33 to 186 ± 54 mmHg for isoflurane (n = 37), and 150 ± 38 to 214 ± 85 mmHg for propofol (n = 45; p = 0.029). On day seven, PaO(2)/FiO(2) was 198 ± 69 mmHg in patients randomized to isoflurane (n = 20) and 174 ± 106 mmHg in patients randomized to propofol (n = 20; p = 0.933). Both for the whole study population and for the subgroup with PaO(2)/FiO(2) ≤ 200 mmHg, no significant between-group differences were observed for PaCO(2), pH and tidal volume as well as 30-day mortality and ventilator-free days alive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency’s EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results. Springer International Publishing 2022-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9765364/ /pubmed/36538243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-01090-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Becher, Tobias
Meiser, Andreas
Guenther, Ulf
Bellgardt, Martin
Wallenborn, Jan
Kogelmann, Klaus
Bracht, Hendrik
Falthauser, Andreas
Nilsson, Jonas
Sackey, Peter
Kellner, Patrick
Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title_full Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title_short Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
title_sort isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9765364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36538243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-01090-w
work_keys_str_mv AT bechertobias isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT meiserandreas isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT guentherulf isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bellgardtmartin isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT wallenbornjan isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kogelmannklaus isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT brachthendrik isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT falthauserandreas isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT nilssonjonas isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sackeypeter isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kellnerpatrick isofluranevspropofolforsedationininvasivelyventilatedpatientswithacutehypoxemicrespiratoryfailureanapriorihypothesissubstudyofarandomizedcontrolledtrial