PURPOSE: Assessing feasibility and physiological effects of sedation with sevoflurane, administered with the anesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa), in comparison with propofol and remifentanil. METHODS: Seventeen patients undergoing mechanical ventilation underwent sedation with sevoflurane delivered with AnaConDa (phase SevAn), preceded and followed by sedation with propofol and remifentanil (phases ProRe(1), ProRe(2)), with the same sedation targets. RESULTS: With both strategies it was possible to achieve the sedation targets. Time required to sedate and awake patients was greater during SevAn than ProRe(1): respectively, 3.3 +/- 3.0 versus 8.9 +/- 6.1 and 7.47 +/- 5.05 versus 16.3 +/- 11.4 min. During SevAn the PaCO(2) and minute ventilation increased. Hemodynamics was stable between ProRe(1) and SevAn, except for an increase in heart rate in the SevAn phase. Environmental pollution from sevoflurane was within the safety limits. CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane can be effectively and safely used for short-term sedation of ICU patients with stable hemodynamic conditions.
Migliari, M., Bellani, G., Rona, R., Isgro', S., Vergnano, B., Mauri, T., et al. (2009). Short-term evaluation of sedation with sevoflurane administered by the anesthetic conserving device in critically ill patients. INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 35(7), 1240-1246 [10.1007/s00134-009-1414-7].
Short-term evaluation of sedation with sevoflurane administered by the anesthetic conserving device in critically ill patients
BELLANI, GIACOMO;ISGRO', STEFANO;VERGNANO, BEATRICE;MAURI, TOMMASO;PATRONITI, NICOLO' ANTONINO;PESENTI, ANTONIO MARIA;FOTI, GIUSEPPE
2009
Abstract
PURPOSE: Assessing feasibility and physiological effects of sedation with sevoflurane, administered with the anesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa), in comparison with propofol and remifentanil. METHODS: Seventeen patients undergoing mechanical ventilation underwent sedation with sevoflurane delivered with AnaConDa (phase SevAn), preceded and followed by sedation with propofol and remifentanil (phases ProRe(1), ProRe(2)), with the same sedation targets. RESULTS: With both strategies it was possible to achieve the sedation targets. Time required to sedate and awake patients was greater during SevAn than ProRe(1): respectively, 3.3 +/- 3.0 versus 8.9 +/- 6.1 and 7.47 +/- 5.05 versus 16.3 +/- 11.4 min. During SevAn the PaCO(2) and minute ventilation increased. Hemodynamics was stable between ProRe(1) and SevAn, except for an increase in heart rate in the SevAn phase. Environmental pollution from sevoflurane was within the safety limits. CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane can be effectively and safely used for short-term sedation of ICU patients with stable hemodynamic conditions.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
