Jabaley, Craig S.

Abstract Introduction Sedation is routinely administered to facilitate comfort and tolerance of life support for critically ill adults dependent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Isoflurane, a widely used anesthetic during surgery, has properties that may also benefit ICU patients requiring continuous sedation. However, efficacy as a sedative and safety in this population is not well established. Methods We conducted two identically designed multicenter randomized trials, INSPIRE ICU1 and INSPIRE ICU2, at hospitals across the US. Ventilator-dependent adults were randomly assigned in a 1.5:1 ratio to receive either inhaled isoflurane or intravenous propofol as the first-line sedative for up to 48 ± 6 hours, targeting a sedation depth between Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) -1 (drowsy) to -4 (responsive only to physical stimuli). Isoflurane was administered via an anesthetic conserving device (Sedaconda ACD-S). In both arms, opioids were permitted at the lowest dose required to achieve freedom from pain. The primary outcome was the percentage of time at target sedation level, assessed as a noninferiority outcome with pre-specified margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes included opioid exposure, wake-up time after end of treatment, time to extubation, and proportion of time with spontaneous breathing effort. Results A total of 470 combined participants were included in the two trials. In each trial, 142 patients were randomly assigned to isoflurane and 93 to propofol. In INSPIRE ICU1, percentage of time within target sedation depth was 77.1 [53.2, 89.9] % with isoflurane and 80.9 [58.2, 96.4] % with propofol (difference -1.5 [-8.9, >99] %; p < 0.01 for noninferiority). In INSPIRE ICU2, percentage of time within target sedation depth was 72.6 [66.4, 78.9] % with isoflurane and 74.5 [67.5, 81.5] % with propofol (difference -1.9 [-9.4, >99] %; p < 0.01 for noninferiority). In both trials, patients assigned to isoflurane received significantly less opioid, measured as fentanyl equivalents, during the treatment period. In INSPIRE ICU2, participants receiving isoflurane were significantly likelier to exhibit spontaneous breathing efforts, but this finding was not replicated in INSPIRE ICU1. There were no significant differences in time to wake-up or time to extubation between groups in either trial. No episodes of malignant hyperthermia or propofol infusion syndrome were reported. Adverse events were comparable in type and frequency between groups. Conclusions In two US multicenter trials, isoflurane was noninferior to propofol for maintaining target sedation depth in adults undergoing invasive ventilation, and was associated with significantly lower opioid exposure. (NCT05327296, NCT05312385) This abstract is funded by: Sedana Medical

Objective Specific sedative hypnotic agents, administered to facilitate endotracheal intubation (ETI) in critically ill adults, may lead to adverse outcomes such as peri-intubation cardiovascular collapse. However, little is known from systematic investigations of the impact these individual agents have on cardiovascular function or other clinical outcomes. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus and Web of science databases. Study selection We conducted a systematic search for randomized and non-randomized studies that evaluated adult (≥18 years) critically ill patients who were sedated to facilitate ETI with ketamine, propofol, ketamine/propofol, etomidate, or a benzodiazepine and who had data on peri-intubation hemodynamics and at least one other outcome involving acute kidney injury, delirium, opioid use, intubation difficulty, sequential organ failure assessment, length of stay, or mortality. Eighty-five studies were identified for eligibility assessment with 23 included in the analysis. Data extraction Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data from selected articles, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I for observational studies and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Data synthesis Acute cardiovascular dysfunction (peri-intubation hemodynamic instability and/or cardiac arrest) was similar between etomidate and ketamine with more events seen when propofol versus non-propofol sedation was administered. However, exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between etomidate and ketamine (OR 1.05 [95%CI 0.60-1.84]) or between etomidate and propofol (OR 0.91 [95%CI 0.33-2.46]). Compared to ketamine, etomidate demonstrated lower survival to hospital discharge in the included studies in exploratory meta-analysis OR 0.76 (95%CI 0.62-0.92). Limited data existed for other outcomes with no discernible differences between sedative agents. Conclusions Acute cardiovascular dysfunction was more common when propofol, as compared to non-propofol sedation, was administered, although not statistically significant in exploratory meta-analysis. In addition, etomidate conferred lower survival to hospital discharge versus non-etomidate sedation, which was confirmed in exploratory meta-analysis of etomidate versus ketamine.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing contributions of critical care anesthesiologists to clinical practice, research, and administrative leadership of intensive care units (ICUs), relatively little is known about the subspecialty-specific clinical practice environment. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice is essential to recognize the opportunities and challenges facing critical care anesthesia, optimize staffing patterns, assess sustainability and satisfaction, and strategically plan for future activity, scope, and training. This study surveyed intensivists who are members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) to evaluate practice patterns of critical care anesthesiologists, including compensation, types of ICUs covered, models of overnight ICU coverage, and relationships between these factors. We hypothesized that variability in compensation and practice patterns would be observed between individuals. METHODS: Board-certified critical care anesthesiologists practicing in the United States were identified using the SOCCA membership distribution list and invited to take a voluntary online survey between May and June 2021. Multiple-choice questions with both single- and multiple-select options were used for answers with categorical data, and adaptive questioning was used to clarify stem-based responses. Respondents were asked to describe practice patterns at their respective institutions and provide information about their demographics, salaries, effort in ICUs, as well as other activities. RESULTS: A total of 490 participants were invited to take this survey, and 157 (response rate 32%) surveys were completed and analyzed. The majority of respondents were White (73%), male (69%), and younger than 50 years of age (82%). The cardiothoracic/cardiovascular ICU was the most common practice setting, with 69.5% of respondents reporting time working in this unit. Significant variability was observed in ICU practice patterns. Respondents reported spending an equal proportion of their time in clinical practice in the operating rooms and ICUs (median, 40%; interquartile range [IQR], 20%–50%), whereas a smaller proportion—primarily those who completed their training before 2009—reported administrative or research activities. Female respondents reported salaries that were $36,739 less than male respondents; however, this difference was not statistically different, and after adjusting for age and practice type, these differences were less pronounced (–$27,479.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], –$57,232.61 to $2273.03; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These survey data provide a current snapshot of anesthesiology critical care clinical practice patterns in the United States. Our findings may inform decision-making around the initiation and expansion of critical care services and optimal staffing patterns, as well as provide a basis for further work that focuses on intensivist satisfaction and burnout.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.