Short-term sevoflurane sedation using the anaesthetic conserving device AnaConDa® after cardiac surgery: feasibility, recovery and clinical issues

doi:10.1186/cc6491

Top
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
References

Critical Care
Volume 12
Suppl 2

Viewing options:

Full text
PDF (6.6MB)

Related literature:

Articles citing this article
on Google Scholar
Other articles by authors
on Google Scholar

Röhm KD
Wolf MW
Boldt J
Schöllhorn T
Schellhaass A
Piper SN

on PubMed

Röhm KD
Wolf MW
Boldt J
Schöllhorn T
Schellhaass A
Piper SN
Related articles/pages
on Google

on Google Scholar

Tools:

Post to:

This article is part of the supplement: 28th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine .

Poster presentation

Short-term sevoflurane sedation using the anaesthetic conserving device AnaConDa^®after cardiac surgery: feasibility, recovery and clinical issues

KD Röhm, MW Wolf, J Boldt, T Schöllhorn, A Schellhaass and SN Piper

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Germany.

from 28th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine
Brussels, Belgium. 18–21 March 2008

Critical Care 2008, 12(Suppl 2):P270doi:10.1186/cc6491

The electronic version of this abstract is the complete one and can be found online at: http://ccforum.com/content/12/S2/P270

Published:

13 March 2008

Introduction

With the approval of the anaesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa^®), inhalative sedation in the ICU has become feasible [1]. Isoflurane has been investigated in postoperative and critically ill patients using AnaConDa^®[2,3], whereas sevoflurane sedation has only been reported in small observations [4,5]. This randomised, single-blinded, BIS-controlled study was to evaluate for the first time sevoflurane via AnaConDa^®compared with propofol, with regard to recovery, sedation quality and consumption of anaesthetics.

Methods

Seventy patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomised at admission to the ICU to either receive sevoflurane (n = 35) or propofol (n = 35) for postoperative sedation. The primary endpoint was recovery time from termination of sedation (extubation time, spontaneous eye opening and hand grip). Sedation quality (using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, RASS), sevoflurane consumption, duration of ICU and hospital stays, and adverse side effects were documented.

Results

Median recovery times were significantly shorter (P < 0.002) with sevoflurane than with propofol (extubation time: 21.5 min (2–259) vs 150.5 min (22–910)). Mean sevoflurane consumption was 3.2 ± 1.4 ml/hour to obtain end-tidal concentrations of 0.5–1 vol%; mean administration of propofol was 2.4 ± 1.1 mg/kg/hour. Sedation quality was comparable in both groups (RASS -3 to -4), and no serious complications including haemodynamics related to either sedative drug occurred. Length of stay in the ICU was similar in both groups, whereas patients receiving sevoflurane were discharged significantly (P < 0.03) earlier from hospital (10.6 ± 3.3 days vs 14 ± 7.7 days).

Conclusion

Sevoflurane administration via AnaConDa^®is an efficacious and easy titratable way to provide postoperative sedation in the ICU. Recovery from sedation was facilitated with sevoflurane compared with propofol, and resulted in a shorter ventilation time. Sevoflurane sedated patients left hospital a mean 3 days earlier compared with a propofol-based regimen.

References

Enlund M:
Anaesthesia. 2001, 56:429-432. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Sackey PV:
Crit Care Med. 2004, 32:2241-2246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hanafy M:
Egyptian J Anaesth. 2005, 21:237-242.
Soukup J:
Intensiv- und Notfallbehandlung. 2007, 32:29-36.
Berton J:
Anesth Analg. 2007, 104:130-134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text