Hudock, Kristin

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

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the balloon‐expandable Sapien transcatheter heart valve improves survival compared to standard therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high operative risk. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of patients may require pre‐emptive or emergent support with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and/or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) during TAVR due to pre‐existing comorbid conditions or as a result of procedural complications. Objectives: We hypothesized that patients who required CPB or IABP would have increased periprocedural complications and reduced long‐term survival. In addition, we sought to determine whether preprocedural variables could predict the need for CPB and IABP. Methods: The study population included 2,525 patients in the PARTNER Trial (Cohort A and B) and the continuing access registry (CAR). Patients that received CPB or IABP were compared to patients that did not receive either, and then further divided into those that received support pre‐TAVR and those that were placed on support emergently. Results: One‐hundred sixty‐three patients (6.5%) were placed on CPB and/or IABP. The use of CPB or IABP was associated with higher 1 year mortality (49.1% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, utilization of CPB or IABP was an independent predictor of 30 day (HR 6.95) and 1‐year (HR 2.56) mortality. Although mortality was highest in emergent cases, mortality was also greater in planned CPB and IABP cases compared with non‐CPB/IABP cases (53.3% and 40.3% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that CPB and IABP use in TAVR portends a poor prognosis and its utilization, particularly in the setting of pre‐emptive use, needs reconsideration. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.