Comparison of propofol-based versus volatile-based anaesthesia and postoperative sedation in cardiac surgical patients: a prospective, randomized, study

Inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit

The discovery and utilization of volatile anesthetics has significantly transformed surgical practices since their inception in the mid-19th century. Recently, a paradigm shift is observed as volatile anesthetics extend beyond traditional confines of the operating theatres, finding diverse applications in intensive care settings. In the dynamic landscape of intensive care, volatile anesthetics emerge as a promising avenue for addressing complex sedation requirements, managing refractory lung pathologies including acute respiratory distress syndrome and status asthmaticus, conditions of high sedative requirements including burns, high opioid or alcohol use and neurological conditions such as status epilepticus. Volatile anesthetics can be administered through either inhaled route via anesthetic machines/devices or through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuitry, providing intensivists with multiple options to tailor therapy. Furthermore, their unique pharmacokinetic profiles render them titratable and empower clinicians to individualize management with heightened accuracy, mitigating risks associated with conventional sedation modalities. Despite the amounting enthusiasm for the use of these therapies, barriers to widespread utilization include expanding equipment availability, staff familiarity and training of safe use. This article delves into the realm of applying inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit through discussing their pharmacology, administration considerations in intensive care settings, complication considerations, and listing indications and evidence of the use of volatile anesthetics in the critically ill patient population.

Postoperative outcomes after total sevoflurane inhalation sedation using a disposable delivery system (Sedaconda-ACD) in cardiac surgery

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted our team to develop new solutions for performing cardiac surgery without intravenous anesthetics due to a shortage of these drugs. We utilized an anesthetic conserving device (Sedaconda-ACD) to administer total inhaled anesthesia because specific vaporizers were unavailable for administering inhaled agents during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in our center. We documented our experience and postoperative cardiovascular outcomes. The primary outcome was the peak level of troponin, with secondary outcomes encompassing other cardiovascular complications.

Material and methods

A single-center retrospective study was conducted. We performed a multivariate analysis with a propensity score. This investigation took place at a large university referral center.

Participants

Adult patients (age ≥ 18) who underwent elective cardiac surgery with CPB between June 2020 to March 2021.

Intervention

During the inclusion period, two anesthesia protocols for the maintenance of anesthesia coexisted-total inhaled anesthesia with Sedaconda-ACD and our classic protocol with intravenous drugs during and after CPB.

Primary endpoint

Troponin peak level recorded after surgery (highest level recorded within 48 h following the surgery).

Results

Out of the 654 included patients, 454 were analyzed after matching (intravenous group = 297 and inhaled group = 157). No significant difference was found between the groups in postoperative troponin peak levels (723 ng/l vs. 993 ng/l-p = 0.2). Total inhaled anesthesia was associated with a decreased requirement for inotropic medications (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.99, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

In our cohort, the Sedaconda-ACD device enabled us to achieve anesthesia without intravenous agents, and we did not observe any increase in postoperative complications. Total inhaled anesthesia with sevoflurane was not associated with a lower incidence of myocardial injury assessed by the postoperative troponin peak level. However, in our cohort, the use of inotropic drugs was lower.

Renal safety of critical care sedation with sevoflurane: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Volatile anesthetic agents are increasingly widely used for critical care sedation. There are concerns that sevoflurane presents a risk of renal injury when used in this role. RCTs comparing the use of critical care sevoflurane sedation with any control in humans were systematically identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, web of Science, and CINAHL (until May 2022), if they presented comparative data on renal function or serum inorganic fluoride levels. Pooled SMDs (95% CI) were calculated where possible after assessment of quality with GRADE and risk of bias with ROB-2. Eight studies analyzing 793 patients were included. The median duration of use of critical care sevoflurane sedation was 4.8 [IQR 3.5-9.2] hours; however, most trials also included a period of prior intraoperative use. No significant difference was found in serum creatinine at 1 day (SMD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.12 to 0.21), 48 h (SMD = - 0.04; 95% Cl - 0.25 to 0.17), 72 h (SMD = - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.45 to 0.15), and at discharge (SMD = - 0.1; 95% CI - 0.3 to 0.13) between the sevoflurane group and the control groups. Creatinine clearance was measured in two studies at 48 h with no significant difference (SMD = - 0.13; 95% Cl - 0.38 to 0.11). Levels of serum inorganic fluoride were significantly elevated in patients where sevoflurane was used. Sevoflurane was not associated with renal failure when used for critical care sedation of fewer than 72-h duration, despite the elevation of serum fluoride. Longer-term studies are currently inadequate, including in patients with compromised renal function, to further evaluate the role of sevoflurane in this setting.Trial registration PROSPERO (CRD42022333099).

Inhaled Sedation with Volatile Anesthetics for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review

Inhaled sedation was recently approved in Europe as an alternative to intravenous sedative drugs for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize the available data from the literature published between 2005 and 2023 in terms of the efficacy, safety, and potential clinical benefits of inhaled sedation for ICU mechanically ventilated patients. The results indicated that inhaled sedation reduces the time to extubation and weaning from mechanical ventilation and reduces opioid and muscle relaxant consumption, thereby possibly enhancing recovery. Several researchers have reported its potential cardio-protective, anti-inflammatory or bronchodilator properties, alongside its minimal metabolism by the liver and kidney. The reflection devices used with inhaled sedation may increase the instrumental dead space volume and could lead to hypercapnia if the ventilator settings are not optimal and the end tidal carbon dioxide is not monitored. The risk of air pollution can be prevented by the adequate scavenging of the expired gases. Minimizing atmospheric pollution can be achieved through the judicious use of the inhalation sedation for selected groups of ICU patients, where the benefits are maximized compared to intravenous sedation. Very rarely, inhaled sedation can induce malignant hyperthermia, which prompts urgent diagnosis and treatment by the ICU staff. Overall, there is growing evidence to support the benefits of inhaled sedation as an alternative for intravenous sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. The indication and management of any side effects should be clearly set and protocolized by each ICU. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still required to investigate whether inhaled sedation should be prioritized over the current practice of intravenous sedation.

Anesthetic Preferences for Cardiac Anesthesia: A Survey of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Volatile anesthetics have been historically preferred for cardiac anesthesia, but the evidence for their superiority to intravenous agents is mixed. We conducted a survey to better understand the current state of practice and the rationale behind provider preferences for anesthesia for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. We hypothesized that anesthetic preference would vary considerably among surveyed providers without a clear majority, as would the rationale behind those preferences.

METHODS

Email invitations were sent to members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, who were asked to identify the anesthetics or sedatives they typically prefer to administer during induction, prebypass, bypass, postbypass, and postoperative periods and why they prefer those agents. Members' beliefs regarding the importance of anesthetics on postoperative outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent on 2 separate dates to 3328 and 3274 members, of whom 689 (21%) responded. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) respondent age was 45 (37-56) years, 79% were men, and 75% were fellowship trained. The most frequently chosen drug for induction was propofol (80%). Isoflurane was the most frequently selected primary agent for the prebypass (57%), bypass (62%), and postbypass periods (50%). Sevoflurane was the second most frequently selected (30%; 17%, and 24%, respectively). Propofol was the third most frequently selected agent for the bypass (14%) and postbypass periods (17%). Ease of use was the most frequently selected reason for administering isoflurane and sevoflurane for each period. During bypass, the second most frequently selected rationale for using isoflurane and sevoflurane was institutional practice. A total of 76% responded that the perfusionist typically delivers the bypass anesthetic. Ischemic preconditioning, organ protection, and postoperative cognitive function were infrequently selected as rationales for preferring the volatile anesthetics. Most respondents (73%) think that anesthetics have organ-protective properties, especially isoflurane (74%) and sevoflurane (59%), and 72% believed that anesthetic choice contributes to patient outcome. The median (IQR) agreement (0 = strongly disagree to 100 = strongly agree) was 72 (63-85) for the statement that "inhaled anesthetics are an optimal maintenance anesthetic for cardiac surgery."

CONCLUSIONS

In a survey of cardiac anesthesiologists, a majority of respondents indicated that they prefer volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia, that anesthetic selection impacts patient outcomes, and that volatile anesthetics have organ-protective properties. The members' rationales for preferring these agents possibly reflect that practical considerations, such as ease of use, effectiveness, and institutional practice, also influence anesthetic selection during cardiac surgery in addition to considerations such as organ protection.

Volatile Anaesthesia versus Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for Cardiac Surgery—A Narrative Review

Recent research has contested the previously accepted paradigm that volatile anaesthetics improve outcomes in cardiac surgery patients when compared to intravenous anaesthesia. In this review we summarise the mechanisms of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury and cardioprotection in cardiac surgery. In addition, we make a comprehensive analysis of evidence comparing outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under volatile or intravenous anaesthesia, in terms of mortality and morbidity (cardiac, neurological, renal, pulmonary).

Inhalational or total intravenous anesthetic for cardiac surgery: does the debate even exist?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative myocardial injury related to cardiac surgery is associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Volatile anesthetics (VA) have been used during cardiac surgery for decades because of their direct and indirect preconditioning and protection against ischemia-reperfusion injury. The current review provides a summary of the latest literature comparing pharmacological preconditioning and the potential benefits of using VA versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) for general anesthesia to improve outcomes after cardiac surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature reports lower mortality and better outcomes when VA is used alone or in combination with remote ischemic preconditioning compared with groups receiving TIVA. However, inconsistent research findings over the years have led to continued debate regarding the anesthetic technique considered more favorable for cardiac surgery.

SUMMARY

Research findings regarding the use of volatile anesthetic versus TIVA for better outcomes after cardiac surgery are inconsistent. Variability in timing, duration, dosing, and type of VA as well as surgical and patient-related factors may have influenced these results. Therefore, either technique can reasonably be adopted depending on provider and institutional preference and used safely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Reflection efficiencies of AnaConDa-S and AnaConDa-100 for isoflurane under dry laboratory and simulated clinical conditions: a bench study using a test lung

Background: Adequate sedation is important for the treatment of ICU patients. AnaConDa (Anesthetic-Conserving-Device; ACD; Sedana Medical, Sweden), connected between ventilator and the patient, retains isoflurane during expiration, and releases it back during inspiration. The reflection efficiency (Ref_Eff) corresponds to the percentage of expired anesthetic molecules that are re-inspired. We compared Ref_Eff of AnaConDa-S (ACD-50) and AnaConDa-100 (ACD-100) under laboratory (DRY) and simulated clinical conditions (CLIN) using a test lung.Methods: Measurements were made under DRY and CLIN, with different tidal volumes (TV: 300 mL & 500 mL) and infusion rates (0.5-10 mL·h^-1). Ref_Eff was calculated from the isoflurane concentration in the test-lung (C_ISO) and plotted against the anesthetic vapor volume exhaled in one breath (V-exh = C_ISO·TV).Results: DRY: Ref_Eff of both devices was ≈90% over a wide range of V-exh, but decreased when V-exh exceeded 5-7 mL (ACD-50) or 10-15 mL (ACD-100).CLIN: Ref_Eff of ACD-50 was 70-80% (ACD-100: 80-90%), decreasing gradually with increasing V-exh. For 1 Vol.% isoflurane at TV500, the infusion rate with ACD-50 was twofold higher compared to ACD-100 (4 versus 2 mL·h^-1).Conclusion: Under DRY and concentrations <1.5 Vol.%, Ref_Eff of both devices is around 90%. Under CLIN, ACD-100 performs better with Ref_Eff between 80% and 90% (ACD-50:70-80%), decreasing with increased vapor volume exhaled in one breath.

Anaesthesia and ICU sedation with sevoflurane do not reduce myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized prospective study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effect of anaesthesia and ICU sedation with sevoflurane to protect the myocardium against ischemia-reperfusion injury associated to cardiac surgery assessed by troponin release.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, open-label, randomized study in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomized to an algorithm-based intervention group and a control group. The main outcome was the perioperative kinetic of cardiac troponin I (cTnI). The secondary outcomes included composite endpoint, GDF-15 (macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1) value, arterial lactate levels, and the length of stay (LOS) in the ICU.

RESULTS

Of 82 included patients, 81 were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis (intervention group: n = 42; control group: n = 39). On inclusion, the intervention and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of demographic and surgical data. The postoperative kinetics of cTnI did not differ significantly between groups: the mean difference was 0.44 ± 1.09 μg/ml, P = .69. Incidence of composite endpoint and GDF-15 values were higher in the sevoflurane group than in propofol group. The intervention and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of ICU stay and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The use of an anaesthesia and ICU sedation with sevoflurane was not associated with a lower incidence of myocardial injury assessed by cTnI. Sevoflurane administration was associated with higher prevalence of acute renal failure and higher GDF-15 values.