Sedation After Cardiac Surgery: Is One Drug Better Than Another?

Effects of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine on Cognitive Dysfunction Following Open-Heart Surgery: A Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing open-heart surgery often face significant challenges in postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). There has been growing interest in understanding how anesthesia medications, such as dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam, impact cognitive function in these patients.

METHOD

This comprehensive review aims to detail the effect of DEX and midazolam on cognitive outcomes following open-heart surgery.

FINDINGS

Midazolam, a highly selective and commonly used benzodiazepine for preoperative anxiolytics and sedation has been associated with POCD. However, evidence regarding its impact on cognitive function is vague; some studies suggest a potential link between midazolam administration and cognitive impairment, while others report no effect or even an improvement in cognitive abilities. DEX is a potential neuroprotective agent in cardiac surgery. The effects of DEX on cognitive function, including a reduction in POCD incidence and severity, have been reported in several studies. It modulates the inflammatory responses, attenuates oxidative stress, and preserves cerebral perfusion. Although DEX and midazolam show promising results, their effects on cognitive function following open-heart surgery are yet to be elucidated.

CONCLUSION

Various factors, including patient characteristics, perioperative management, and surgical procedures, may influence these outcomes, highlighting the need for further research to better understand the roles of these agents in cognitive function following open-heart surgery.

Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.

METHODS

In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg-1·hr-1) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg-1·min-1) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ciprofol after continuous infusion in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, which has primarily been used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in adults, is characterized by rapid onset, short duration of action, and quick and smooth recovery. However, the pharmacokinetic characteristics of continuous infusions and the correlation between the plasma concentration and the bispectral index (BIS) in elderly patients are still unknown.

METHOD

In this randomized, controlled study, thirty elderly patients (62-78 years old) undergoing elective gastrointestinal tumor resection were treated with propofol (N = 15) or ciprofol (N = 15) as sedatives during anesthesia. After induction, ciprofol/propofol was continuously infused intravenously until the end of the operation. Perioperative vital signs, injection pain, adverse events (AEs), BIS values, eyelid reflex disappearance times, and recovery times were recorded. The plasma concentrations of ciprofol and propofol were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC‒MS/MS) and the pharmacokinetics were determined by noncompartmental analysis.

RESULTS

Both drugs caused a decrease in blood pressure and heart rate after induction. Eight cases (53. 3%) of hypotension and 3 cases (20%) of bradycardia occurred in the propofol group, while 8 cases (53. 3%) of hypotension and 5 cases (33. 3%) of bradycardia occurred in the ciprofol group. At intubation, the ciprofol group experienced fewer fluctuations in blood pressure than the propofol group. Ciprofol resulted in only one case (6.7%) of mild injection pain, less than that produced by propofol (10/15, 66.7%) (P < 0.05). Anesthesia induction was successfully completed with both drugs, and there were no significant differences in eyelash reflex disappearance or recovery time between the two groups. The plasma concentrations during maintenance were relatively stable in both groups (propofol 1.78 ± 0.67 μg/mL, ciprofol 0.71 ± 0.23 μg/mL), and a suitable depth of sedation was achieved with a BIS of 40-60. The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for ciprofol are listed as follows: Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) 6.02 ± 2.13 μg/ml; Time to Maximum Concentration (Tmax) 0.18 ± 0.62 min; Apparent Volume of Distribution (Vz) 3.96 ± 0.84 L/kg; Total Clearance (CL) 0.83 ± 0.14 L/h/kg; Half-life (t½) 3.47 ± 1.85 h; Area Under the Curve (AUC) 5000 ± 900 L/h/kg; Terminal Elimination Rate Constant (λz) 0.23 ± 0.07 1/h. Similar to propofol, the plasma concentration of ciprofol was linearly correlated with the BIS.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, can be safely and effectively used in elderly patient continuous infusion with minimal injection pain. Plasma concentrations of ciprofol correlate well with BIS values, helping control sedation depth. For elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor surgery, an optimal maintenance dose of 0.8 mg/kg/h is recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial (registration No: ChiCTR2100047580, https://www.chictr.org.cn . The pre-registration date was June 20, 2021, and the review approval and official case solicitation began in December 2021; Retrospectively registered) was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Congress Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. All study subjects provided written informed consent.

Efficacy of Single-Bolus Administration of Remimazolam During Induction of Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a recently marketed ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This drug is considered safe and effective during general anesthesia; however, limited information is available about its effects on patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and hemodynamic stability of a bolus administration of remimazolam during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to any 1 of the following 3 groups: anesthesia induction with a continuous infusion of remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h (continuous group), a single-bolus injection of remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg (bolus 0.1 group), or a single-bolus injection of remimazolam 0.2 mg/kg (bolus 0.2 group). Time to loss of responsiveness, defined as modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale <3, and changes in hemodynamic status during anesthetic induction were measured.

RESULTS

Times to loss of responsiveness were 137 ± 20, 71 ± 35, and 48 ± 9 seconds in the continuous, bolus 0.1, and bolus 0.2 groups, respectively. The greatest mean difference was observed between the continuous and bolus 0.2 groups (89.0, 95% confidence interval [CI], 79.1-98.9), followed by the continuous and bolus 0.1 groups (65.8, 95% CI, 46.9-84.7), and lastly between the bolus 0.2 and bolus 0.1 groups (23.2, 95% CI, 6.6-39.8). No significant differences were found in terms of arterial blood pressures and heart rates of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-bolus injection of remimazolam provided efficient anesthetic induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A 0.2 mg/kg bolus injection of remimazolam resulted in the shortest time to loss of responsiveness among the 3 groups, without significantly altering the hemodynamic parameters. Therefore, this dosing can be considered a favorable anesthetic induction method for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Comparing the effect of sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol on sleep quality of patients after cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Sleep quality is the main concern of patients after cardiac surgery. We compared the effect of two routinely used sedatives on the sleep quality of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiovascular surgery.

Methods

It is a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. A total of 120 patients, after cardiac surgery were enrolled. During extubating, patients were randomized into two groups: 60 patients received an infusion of dexmedetomidine (precede; 0.5 μg/kg/h), and 60 patients received 50 μg/kg/min propofol for 6 hours. Baseline characteristics were compared between the groups. The patients completed the St. Mary's Hospital Sleep Questionnaire, and the scores were compared between the groups.

Results

The groups were not different in terms of demographics, underlying diseases, smoking/drug abuse/alcohol, number of vessels involved, history of non-cardiac surgery, and mean levels of serum parameters (P>0.05). Most of the medications used were similar between the groups (P>0.05), except calcium channel blockers (more frequently used in the propofol group [P=0.027). The details of surgery were not statistically significant different (P>0.05); but, the mean volume of platelet received after the surgery was higher in propofol group (P=0.03). The propofol group had less problems with last night's sleep (0 vs 0.1±0.66), felt more clear-headed (4.9±0.6 vs 4.68±0.58, were more satisfied with their last night's sleep (52.1% vs 47.9%), but spent more time getting into sleep (0.38±1.67 vs 0 ) (P<0.5).

Conclusion

The sleep quality of patients under the influence of propofol seemed to be better than dexmedetomidine after cardiac surgery.

Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal sedative regime for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) intolerance remains uncertain. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil (REM) compared to dexmedetomidine (DEX) in cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study, adult cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV were enrolled and randomly assigned to be treated with either REM or DEX for sedation. The status of NIV intolerance was evaluated using a four-point NIV intolerance score at different timepoints within a 72-h period. The primary outcome was the mitigation rate of NIV intolerance following sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were enrolled, with 89 assigned to the REM group and 90 to the DEX group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, including NIV intolerance score [3, interquartile range (IQR) 3-3 vs. 3, IQR 3-4, p = 0.180]. The chi-squared test showed that mitigation rate, defined as the proportion of patients who were relieved from their initial intolerance status, was not significant at most timepoints, except for the 15-min timepoint (42% vs. 20%, p = 0.002). However, after considering the time factor, generalized estimating equations showed that the difference was statistically significant, and REM outperformed DEX (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-8.12, p = 0.009). Adverse effects, which were not reported in the REM group, were encountered by nine patients in the DEX group, with three instances of bradycardia and six cases of severe hypotension. Secondary outcomes, including NIV failure (5.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.564), tracheostomy (1.12% vs. 0%, p = 0.313), ICU LOS (7.7 days, IQR 5.8-12 days vs. 7.0 days, IQR 5-10.6 days, p = 0.219), and in-hospital mortality (1.12% vs. 2.22%, p = 0.567), demonstrated comparability between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, our study demonstrated no significant difference between REM and DEX in the percentage of patients who achieved mitigation among cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe NIV intolerance. However, after considering the time factor, REM was significantly superior to DEX. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04734418), registered on January 22, 2021. URL of the trial registry record: https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AM4S&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00038YX&ts=3&cx=eqn1z0 .

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring.

RESULTS

We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36.

CONCLUSIONS

Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

The Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine alone or with Melatonin on Delirium after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

One of the most common cognitive disorders after major surgery is delirium which can increase morbidity and mortality. This study compared the effect of dexmedetomidine with or without melatonin to reduce delirium following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Methods

This trial was a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Eighty patients in two different groups with the administration of dexmedetomidine alone or with melatonin undergoing CABG surgery in Golestan Hospital, Ahvaz, 2022 - 2023, were randomly allocated. This study evaluated the occurrence, onset, and length of delirium, haloperidol, the time required for weaning, and the duration of stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital.

Results

The occurrence of delirium was lower in the melatonin/dexmedetomidine group (15%) than in the dexmedetomidine group (30 %) (P = 0.09). Additionally, the melatonin/dexmedetomidine group had a significantly lower duration of delirium than the dexmedetomidine group (1.95 (0, 20) and 8.46 (0, 40) P = 0.04). However, no significant difference was observed in the onset of delirium between the two groups (P = 0.25). The length of hospital stays in the melatonin/dexmedetomidine group was significantly shorter than in the dexmedetomidine group (7.53 (7, 10) and 8.60 (7, 15), P = 0.03). However, the two groups demonstrated no significant difference between extubation (P = 0.38) and length of ICU stay (P = 0.19).

Conclusions

The administration of melatonin and dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of post-cardiac surgery delirium, shortened its duration, and decreased the impact of many risk factors observed in those not receiving the added melatonin.

Remimazolam Induction in a Patient with Super-Super Obesity and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Case Report

Background: With the rising prevalence of obesity, anesthesiologists are expected to increasingly encounter patients with obesity, which poses challenges for anesthetic management. The use of remimazolam, an intravenous anesthetic agent approved in 2020, may be beneficial in these patients. However, its use in patients with super-super obesity remains underexplored. Case Description: A 55-year-old woman with a body mass index (BMI) of 60.6 kg/m² and moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy under general anesthesia. The transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE) technique was used along with the administration of remimazolam at a rate of 6 mg/kg/h based on the total body weight. The patient was sedated within 125 s without any signs of hemodynamic instability, and the surgery was completed successfully. Conclusions: This case study demonstrates the potential effectiveness of remimazolam infusion for inducing general anesthesia in patients with super-super obesity. The infusion rate, derived from the total body weight, yielded an outcome comparable with that observed in individuals without obesity. Further studies with larger cohorts are required to confirm these findings.

Perioperative Optimization of the Cardiac Surgical Patient

Perioperative optimization of cardiac surgical patients is imperative to reduce complications, utilize health care resources efficiently, and improve patient recovery and quality of life. Standardized application of evidence-based best practices can lead to better outcomes. Although many practices should be applied universally to all patients, there are also opportunities along the surgical journey to identify patients who will benefit from additional interventions that will further ameliorate their recovery. Enhanced recovery programs aim to bundle several process elements in a standardized fashion to optimize outcomes after cardiac surgery. A foundational concept of enhanced recovery is attaining a better postsurgical end point for patients, in less time, through achievement and maintenance in their greatest possible physiologic, functional, and psychological state. Perioperative optimization is a broad topic, spanning multiple phases of care and involving a variety of medical specialties and nonphysician health care providers. In this review we highlight a variety of perioperative care topics, in which a comprehensive approach to patient care can lead to improved results for patients, providers, and the health care system. A particular focus on patient-centred care is included. Although existing evidence supports all of the elements reviewed, most require further improvements in implementation, as well as additional research, before their full potential and usefulness can be determined.

Management of Cardiogenic Shock Unrelated to Acute Myocardial Infarction

Cardiogenic shock is an extreme manifestation of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiogenic shock is often caused by-and has traditionally been studied in the setting of-acute myocardial infarction (AMI CS); however, there is increasing incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock not associated with acute myocardial infarction (non-AMI CS) as a distinct entity. Despite decades of study and technologic advancements, cardiogenic shock mortality remains as high as 50%, regardless of etiology. New approaches to shock phenotyping and classification have emerged, with a focus on appropriately matching patient physiology to a growing list of available interventions. Further study is needed to determine whether these efforts will lead to more nuanced use of mechanical circulatory support and improved patient outcomes, especially in non-AMI CS. In the meantime, models of care incorporating multidisciplinary decision making, such as shock teams, may improve patient selection and outcomes.

Effect of Standing Intravenous Acetaminophen on Postoperative Opioid Exposure in a Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

This study assessed the association between standing intravenous acetaminophen and opioid exposure after cardiac surgery. Before vs after implementation of a standardized pain pathway, we report decreased opioid exposure, 0.38 milligram per kilogram of morphine equivalents [IQR 0.10-0.81] vs 0.26 milligram per kilogram of morphine equivalents [0.09-0.56] (P = .01) and increased acetaminophen exposure, 3 [2-4] vs 4 [4-5] doses (P < .001).

Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol in patients who cannot tolerate non-invasive mechanical ventilation: A prospective, randomized, cohort study

Background and objectives

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used in intensive care units (ICUs) to treat of respiratory failure. Sedation and analgesia are effective and safe for improving compliance in patients intolerant to NIV. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol on the clinical outcomes in NIV intolerant patients.

Methods

This prospective randomized cohort study was conducted in a tertiary ICU, between December 2018 and December 2019. We divided a total of 120 patients into five groups (DEXL, DEXH, REML, REMH, PRO). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA) was used to conduct the statistical analyses.

Results

The DEXL, DEXH, REML, and REMH groups consisted of 23 patients each while the PRO group consisted of 28 patients. Seventy-five patients (62.5%) became tolerant of NIV after starting the drugs. The NIV time, IMV time, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, intubation rate, side effects, and mortality were significantly different among the five groups (P = 0.05). In the groups that were given dexmedetomidine (DEXL, and DEXH), NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were lower than in the other groups.

Conclusion

In this prospective study, we compared the results of three drugs (propofol, dexmedetomidine, and remifentanil) in patients with NIV intolerance. The use of sedation increased NIV success in patients with NIV intolerance. NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, IMV time, and hospital LOS were found to be lower with dexmedetomidine.

Different modalities of analgesia in open heart surgeries in Mansoura University

Background: Opioid usage in cardiac surgery is considered to be the corner stone in management. Inadequate pain control after cardiac surgery complicates patient recovery and increases the load on healthcare services. Multimodal analgesia can be used to achieve better analgesic effect and improves patient outcome.  Material and methods: A total of 90 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with median sternotomy were randomly allocated equally into three groups intraoperatively where first group received continuous infusion of high dose opioids, second group received boluses of low dose opioids and third group received multimodal non opioid analgesics including dexmedetomidine, ketamine and magnesium sulphate. All patients received the same post-operative analgesic regimen consists of morphine patient controlled analgesia (PCA). Results: Patients in multimodal non opioid group had more stable hemodynamics intra and postoperatively. Also, patients in multimodal group had lower pain scores extubation, earlier extubation, shorter ICU stay, earlier mobilization and earlier return of bowel movements compared to patients of both groups received intraoperative higher opioid doses.

Evaluation of volatile sedation in the postoperative intensive care of patients recovering from heart valve surgery: protocol for a randomised, controlled, monocentre trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in the ICU. As subject to inhalational uptake and elimination, the resulting pharmacological benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, volatile anaesthetics appear suitable to meet the growing demands of fast-track cardiac surgery. However, their use requires special preparation at the bedside and trained medical and nursing staff, which might limit the pharmacological benefits. The aim of our work is to assess whether the temporal advantages of recovery under volatile sedation outweigh the higher effort of special preparation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is designed to evaluate the differences between intravenous sedatives (n=48) and volatile sedatives (n=48) in continued intensive care sedation. This study will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded, monocentre trial at a German university hospital in consenting adult patients undergoing heart valve surgery at a university hospital. This observational study will examine the necessary preparation time, staff consultation and overall feasibility of the chosen sedation method. For this purpose, the continuation of sedation in the ICU with volatile sedatives is considered as one study arm and with intravenous sedatives as the comparison group. Due to rapid elimination and quick awakening after the termination of sedation, closer consultation between the attending physician and the ICU nursing staff is required, in addition to a prolonged setup time. Study analysis will include the required setup time, time from admission to extubation as primary outcome and neurocognitive assessability. In addition, possible operation-specific (blood loss, complications), treatment parameters (catecholamine dosages, lung function) and laboratory results (acute kidney injury, acid base balance (lactataemia), liver failure) as influencing factors will be collected. The study-relevant data will be extracted from the continuous digital records of the patient data management system after the patient has been discharged from the ICU. For statistical evaluation, 95% CIs will be calculated for the median time to extubation and neurocognitive assessability, and the association will be assessed with a Cox regression model. In addition, secondary binary outcome measures will be evaluated using Fisher's exact tests. Further descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses are also planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of the University of Frankfurt, Germany (#20-1050). Informed consent of all individual patients will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Dexmedetomidine Use in Intensive Care Unit Sedation and Postoperative Recovery in Elderly Patients Post-Cardiac Surgery (DIRECT)

OBJECTIVE

This study examined recovery, delirium, and neurocognitive outcome in elderly patients receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation after undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Open-label randomized trial.

SETTING

Single center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 70 patients older than 75 years without English language limitations and Mini Mental State Examination scores >20.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either propofol (group P) or dexmedetomidine (group D) postoperatively until normothermic and hemodynamically stable.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Quality of recovery (QoR) was measured by the QoR-40 questionnaire on postoperative day (POD) three. Secondary outcomes were incidence and duration of delirium, time to extubation, length of hospital stay, hospital mortality rate, postoperative quality of life (QoL; measured by SF-36 performed at baseline and six months postoperatively), and neurocognitive disorder (measured by Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen [MCAS] performed at baseline, POD5, and six months postoperatively). A total of sixty-seven patients completed the trial. There was no significant difference in QoR-40 scores (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.6081-to-10.9781; p = 1.000), incidence of delirium (group P, 42%; group D, 24%; p = 0.191), mean hospital stay (95% CI, -5.4838-to-1.5444; p = 0.297), mean time to extubation (95% CI, -19.2513-to-7.5561; p = 0.866), or mean duration of delirium (95% CI, -4.3065-to-1.067; p = 0.206) between groups. No patients died in the hospital. There were no significant differences in changes in SF-36 or MCAS scores over time between groups. There was a decline in MCAS score from preoperatively to POD5 in group P (95% CI, -8.95725-to- -2.61775; p = 0.0005), which was greater than that observed in group D.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' findings demonstrated that the use of dexmedetomidine compared with propofol in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery was unlikely to improve QoR/postoperative QoL. Although the study was underpowered to detect secondary outcomes, the results suggested no reductions in delirium, time to extubation, and hospital stay, but a potential decrease in delayed neurocognitive recovery.

Disruptions in the development of feeding for infants with congenital heart disease

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect for infants born in the United States, with approximately 36,000 affected infants born annually. While mortality rates for children with CHD have significantly declined, there is a growing population of individuals with CHD living into adulthood prompting the need to optimise long-term development and quality of life. For infants with CHD, pre- and post-surgery, there is an increased risk of developmental challenges and feeding difficulties. Feeding challenges carry profound implications for the quality of life for individuals with CHD and their families as they impact short- and long-term neurodevelopment related to growth and nutrition, sensory regulation, and social-emotional bonding with parents and other caregivers. Oral feeding challenges in children with CHD are often the result of medical complications, delayed transition to oral feeding, reduced stamina, oral feeding refusal, developmental delay, and consequences of the overwhelming intensive care unit (ICU) environment. This article aims to characterise the disruptions in feeding development for infants with CHD and describe neurodevelopmental factors that may contribute to short- and long-term oral feeding difficulties.

Propofol plus low-dose dexmedetomidine infusion and postoperative delirium in older patients undergoing cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent complication in older patients. Dexmedetomidine might be effective in decreasing the incidence of POD. We hypothesised that adding low-dose rate dexmedetomidine infusion to a propofol sedation regimen would have fewer side-effects and would counteract the possible delirium producing properties of propofol, resulting in a lower risk of POD than propofol with placebo.

METHODS

In this double-blind placebo-controlled trial, patients ≥60 yr old undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were randomised 1:1 to the following postoperative sedative regimens: a propofol infusion and dexmedetomidine (0.4 μg kg^-1 h^-1) or a propofol infusion and saline 0.9% (placebo group). The study drug was started at chest closure and continued for 10 h. The primary endpoint was in-hospital POD, assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method and chart review method.

RESULTS

POD over the course of hospital stay occurred in 31/177 (18%) and 33/172 (19%) patients in the dexmedetomidine and placebo arm, respectively (P=0.687; odds ratio=0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.54). The incidence of POD in the intensive care alone, or on the ward alone, was also not significantly different between the groups. Subjects in the dexmedetomidine group spent less median time in a delirious state (P=0.026). Median administered postoperative norepinephrine was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group (P<0.001). One patient in the dexmedetomidine group and 10 patients in the placebo group died in the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding low-dose rate dexmedetomidine to a sedative regimen based on propofol did not result in a different risk of in-hospital delirium in older patients undergoing cardiac surgery. With a suggestion of both harm and benefit in secondary outcomes, supplementing postoperative propofol with dexmedetomidine cannot be recommended based on this study.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03388541.

Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589).

CONCLUSIONS

REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments.

Optimal Sedation and Pain Management: A Patient- and Symptom-Oriented Paradigm

In the critically ill patient, optimal pain and sedation management remains the cornerstone of achieving comfort, safety, and to facilitate complex life support interventions. Pain relief, using multimodal analgesia, is an integral component of any orchestrated approach to achieve clinically appropriate goals in critically ill patients. Sedative management, however, remains a significant challenge. Subsequent studies including most recent randomized trials have failed to provide strong evidence in favor of a sedative agent, a mode of sedation or ancillary protocols such as sedative interruption and sedative minimization. In addition, clinical practice guidelines, despite a comprehensive evaluation of relevant literature, have limitations when applied to individual patients. These limitations have been most apparent during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. As such, there is a need for a mindset shift to a practical and achievable sedation strategy, driven by patients' characteristics and individual patient needs, rather than one cocktail for all patients. In this review, we present key principles to achieve patient-and symptom-oriented optimal analgesia and sedation in the critically ill patients. Sedative intensity should be proportionate to care complexity with due consideration to an individual patient's modifiers. The use of multimodal analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics agents-that are easily titratable-reduces the overall quantum of sedatives and opioids, and reduces the risk of adverse events while maximizing clinical benefits. In addition, critical considerations regarding the choice of sedative agents should be given to factors such as age, medical versus operative diagnosis, and cardiovascular status. Specific populations such as trauma, neurological injury, and pregnancy should also be taken into account to maximize efficacy and reduce adverse events.

<p>Cost-Minimization Analysis of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Sedatives for Short-Term Sedation During Mechanical Ventilation in the United States</p>

Purpose

Mechanical ventilation (MV) remains a substantial cost driver in intensive care units (ICU) in the United States (US). Evaluations of standard sedation treatments used to relieve pain and discomfort in this setting have found varying impacts on ICU length of stay. This cost analysis examines both length-of=stay costs and the total cost implications among MV patients receiving common sedative treatments (dexmedetomidine, propofol, or midazolam) in short-term sedation settings (<24 hours).

Methods

A cost-minimization model was conducted from the hospital provider perspective. Clinical outcomes were obtained from published literature and included ICU length of stay, MV duration, prescription of sedatives and pain medication, and the occurrence of adverse events. Outcomes costs were obtained from previously conducted ICU cost studies and Medicare payment fee schedules. All costs were estimated in 2018 US Dollars.

Results

The per patient costs associated with dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam were estimated to be $21,115, $27,073, and $27,603, respectively. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a savings of $5958 per patient compared to propofol and a saving of $6487 compared to midazolam. These savings were primarily driven by a reduction in ICU length of stay and the degree of monitoring and management.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced costs when compared to propofol or midazolam used for short-term sedation during MV in the ICU, suggesting sedative choice can have a potential impact on overall cost per episode.

Dexmedetomidine in Adult Patients in Cardiac Surgery Critical Care: An Evidence-Based Review

Although several options are available for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit, the selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine may offer advantages for patients after cardiac surgery. The author conducted a review of the literature on the use of dexmedetomidine in the cardiac surgery population to determine possible advantages and disadvantages in this patient population. Although the use of dexmedetomidine has not been conclusively shown to change overall morbidity and mortality and may be associated with higher drug cost, its other demonstrated effects offer advantages for postoperative cardiac surgery patients that other forms of sedation cannot match.

Behavior of a dual closed-loop controller of propofol and remifentanil guided by the bispectral index for postoperative sedation of adult cardiac surgery patients: a preliminary open study

A dual-loop controller permits the automated titration of propofol and remifentanil during anesthesia; it has never been used in intensive care after cardiac surgery. The goal of this preliminary study was to determine the efficacy of this controller to provide postoperative sedation in 19 adult cardiac surgery patients with a Bispectral Index target of 50. Results are presented as numbers (percentages) or medians [25th-75th percentiles]. The sedation period lasted 139 min [89-205] during which the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was at - 5 and the Behavioral Pain Scale score at three points for all patients and observation times but one (82 out of 83 assessments). Sedation time in the range 40-60 for the Bispectral Index was 87% [57-95]; one patient had a period of electrical silence defined as Suppression Ratio at least > 10% for more than 60 s. The time between the end of infusions and tracheal extubation was 84 min [63-129]. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was 0 [0-0], 0 [- 1 to 0], and 0 [0-0] respectively during the 3 h following extubation while the verbal numerical pain scores were 6 [4.5-7], 5 [4-6], and 2 [0-5]. Mean arterial pressure decreased during sedation requiring therapeutic interventions, mainly vascular filling in 15 (79%) patients. Automated sedation device was discontinued in two patients for hemodynamic instability. No patient had awareness of the postoperative sedation period. Dual closed-loop can provide postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery but the choice of the depth of sedation should take into account the risk of hypotension.

Effect of perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine on delirium after cardiac surgery in elderly patients: a double-blinded, multi-center, randomized study

Objective

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a serious complication in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study was aimed at investigating the effect of perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine for general anesthesia maintenance on occurrence and duration of POD in elderly patients after cardiac surgery.

Methods

One hundred and sixty-four patients were enrolled after cardiac surgery between June 2009 and December 2016. Patients were assigned by a computer-generated randomization sequence in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexmedetomidine general anesthesia maintenance or propofol general anesthesia maintenance. POD was assessed every day with confusion assessment method for intensive care units (ICU) during the first 5 postoperative days.

Results

There was no significance in incidence of POD between the dexmedetomidine group and the propofol group (P=0.0758). In patients treated with dexmedetomidine, the median onset time of delirium was delayed (second day vs first day) and the duration of delirium reduced (2 days vs 3 days) when compared with propofol-treated patients. The dexmedetomidine-treated patients also displayed a lower VAS score and less opiate analgesic consumption. No difference was observed in respect to other postoperative outcomes.

Conclusion

For elderly patients, perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduced incidence, delayed onset and shortened duration of POD after cardiac surgery.

Comparison of the use of AnaConDa® versus AnaConDa-S® during the post-operative period of cardiac surgery under standard conditions of practice

Changes have been made to the AnaConDa device (Sedana Medical, Stockholm, Sweden), decreasing its size to reduce dead space and carbon dioxide (CO₂) retention. However, this also involves a decrease in the surface area of the activated carbon filter. The CO₂ elimination and sevoflurane (SEV) reflection of the old device (ACD-100) were thus compared with the new version (ACD-50) in patients sedated after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After ERC approval and written informed consent, 23 patients were sedated with SEV, using first the ACD-100 and then the ACD-50 for 60 min each. With each device, patients were ventilated with tidal volumes (TV) of 5 ml/kg of ideal body weight for the first 30 min, and with 7 ml/kg for the next 30 min. Ventilation parameters, arterial blood gases, Bispectral-Index™ (BIS, Aspect Medical Systems Inc., Newton, MA, USA), SEV concentrations exhaled by the patient (SEV-exhaled) and from the expiratory hose (SEV-lost) were recorded every 30 min. A SEV reflection index was calculated: SRI [%] = 100 × (1 − (SEV-lost/SEV-exhaled)). Data were compared using ANOVA with repeated measurements and Student’s T-tests for pairs. Respiratory rates, tidal and minute volumes were not significantly different between the two devices. End tidal and arterial CO₂ partial pressures were significantly higher with the ACD-100 as compared with the ACD-50. SEV infusion rate remained constant. SEV reflection was higher (SRI: ACD-100 vs. ACD-50, TV 5 ml/kg: 95.29 ± 6.45 vs. 85.54 ± 11.15, p = 0.001; 7 ml/kg: 93.42 ± 6.55 vs. 88.77 ± 12.26, p = 0.003). BIS was significantly lower when using the higher TV (60.91 ± 9.99 vs. 66.57 ± 8.22, p = 0.012), although this difference was not clinically relevant. During postoperative sedation, the use of ACD-50 significantly reduced CO₂ retention. SEV reflection was slightly reduced. However, patients remained sufficiently sedated without increasing SEV infusion.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Propofol

Propofol is an intravenous hypnotic drug that is used for induction and maintenance of sedation and general anaesthesia. It exerts its effects through potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABAA receptor, and has gained widespread use due to its favourable drug effect profile. The main adverse effects are disturbances in cardiopulmonary physiology. Due to its narrow therapeutic margin, propofol should only be administered by practitioners trained and experienced in providing general anaesthesia. Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models for propofol exist. Some are used to inform drug dosing guidelines, and some are also implemented in so-called target-controlled infusion devices, to calculate the infusion rates required for user-defined target plasma or effect-site concentrations. Most of the models were designed for use in a specific and well-defined patient category. However, models applicable in a more general population have recently been developed and published. The most recent example is the general purpose propofol model developed by Eleveld and colleagues. Retrospective predictive performance evaluations show that this model performs as well as, or even better than, PK models developed for specific populations, such as adults, children or the obese; however, prospective evaluation of the model is still required. Propofol undergoes extensive PK and PD interactions with both other hypnotic drugs and opioids. PD interactions are the most clinically significant, and, with other hypnotics, tend to be additive, whereas interactions with opioids tend to be highly synergistic. Response surface modelling provides a tool to gain understanding and explore these complex interactions. Visual displays illustrating the effect of these interactions in real time can aid clinicians in optimal drug dosing while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we provide an overview of the PK and PD of propofol in order to refresh readers' knowledge of its clinical applications, while discussing the main avenues of research where significant recent advances have been made.

Experienced Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Intensive Care Unit: A Report of a Structured Consensus

Objective

Management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) remains to be a true challenge in critically ill patients. The pharmacological proprieties of dexmedetomidine (DEX) make it an ideal candidate drug for light and cooperative sedation, but many practical questions remain unanswered. This structured consensus from 17 intensivists well experienced on PAD management and DEX use provides indications for the appropriate use of DEX in clinical practice.

Methods

A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. In four predefined patient populations, the clinical scenarios do not properly cope by the current recommended pharmacological strategies (except DEX), and the possible advantages of DEX use were identified and voted for agreement, after reviewing literature data.

Results

Three scenarios in medical patients, five scenarios in patients with acute respiratory failure undergoing non-invasive ventilation, three scenarios in patients with cardiac surgery in the early postoperative period and three scenarios in patients with overt delirium were identified as challenging with the current PAD strategies. In these scenarios, the use of DEX was voted as potentially useful by most of the panellists owing to its specific pharmacological characteristics, such as conservation of cognitive function, lack of effects on the respiratory drive, low induction of delirium and analgesia effects.

Conclusion

DEX might be considered as a first-line sedative in different scenarios even though conclusive data on its benefits are still lacking.