Safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Fang Feng, Huaxiong Kang, Zhaohui Yang, Li Ma, Yu Chen
{"title":"Safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Fang Feng, Huaxiong Kang, Zhaohui Yang, Li Ma, Yu Chen","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02791-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sedation is a landmark treatment in the intensive care unit; however, the disadvantages of intravenous sedative drugs are increasingly prominent. Volatile sedation is becoming increasingly popular in ICUs due to fewer technical issues with the development of anaesthesia reflectors.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for all randomized trials comparing awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and side effects of different inhaled sedative drugs using an anaesthetic-conserving device (ACD) with intravenous sedation.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>The inclusion criteria were formulated in accordance with the PICOS: P, use of sedatives after admission to the ICU, aged > 18 years; I, intravenous sedatives; C, use of volatile sedatives (heptafluoride, sevoflurane, isoflurane, or desflurane) by AnaConDa or Mirus reflector; O, at least one primary outcome (awakening time, extubation time, ICU length of stay) or secondary outcome (postoperative nausea and vomiting, PONV) or incidence of delirium was reported; and S, RCT. The extubation time was defined as time from ICU admission to extubation.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and literature quality evaluation and reached a consensus after cross-checking.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Fifteen trials with a total of 1185 patients were included, including 568 in the inhaled sedation group and 617 in the intravenous sedation group. Compared with intravenous sedation, inhaled sedation administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time and extubation time. There were no differences in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inhaled sedation has advantages over intravenous sedation in terms of awakening time, extubation time, and ICU LOS (non-cardiac ICU); however, there is no significant difference in the incidence of PONV. Inhaled sedation may be safe and effective for critically ill patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"44"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837438/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02791-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sedation is a landmark treatment in the intensive care unit; however, the disadvantages of intravenous sedative drugs are increasingly prominent. Volatile sedation is becoming increasingly popular in ICUs due to fewer technical issues with the development of anaesthesia reflectors.

Objective: To explore the safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients.

Search methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for all randomized trials comparing awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and side effects of different inhaled sedative drugs using an anaesthetic-conserving device (ACD) with intravenous sedation.

Selection criteria: The inclusion criteria were formulated in accordance with the PICOS: P, use of sedatives after admission to the ICU, aged > 18 years; I, intravenous sedatives; C, use of volatile sedatives (heptafluoride, sevoflurane, isoflurane, or desflurane) by AnaConDa or Mirus reflector; O, at least one primary outcome (awakening time, extubation time, ICU length of stay) or secondary outcome (postoperative nausea and vomiting, PONV) or incidence of delirium was reported; and S, RCT. The extubation time was defined as time from ICU admission to extubation.

Data collection and analysis: Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and literature quality evaluation and reached a consensus after cross-checking.

Main results: Fifteen trials with a total of 1185 patients were included, including 568 in the inhaled sedation group and 617 in the intravenous sedation group. Compared with intravenous sedation, inhaled sedation administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time and extubation time. There were no differences in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Inhaled sedation has advantages over intravenous sedation in terms of awakening time, extubation time, and ICU LOS (non-cardiac ICU); however, there is no significant difference in the incidence of PONV. Inhaled sedation may be safe and effective for critically ill patients.

危重患者吸入镇静的安全性和有效性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:镇静是重症监护病房的标志性治疗;然而,静脉镇静药物的弊端日益突出。由于麻醉反射器的技术问题较少,挥发性镇静在icu中越来越受欢迎。目的:探讨危重患者吸入镇静的安全性和有效性。检索方法:我们检索了PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库中所有比较苏醒和拔管时间、ICU住院时间以及使用麻醉保存装置(ACD)和静脉镇静的不同吸入镇静药物副作用的随机试验。入选标准:按照PICOS制定入选标准:P,入ICU后使用镇静剂,年龄bb0 ~ 18岁;一、静脉镇静剂;C, AnaConDa或Mirus反射器使用挥发性镇静剂(七氟、七氟、异氟或地氟);O,至少有一项主要结局(苏醒时间、拔管时间、ICU住院时间)或次要结局(术后恶心和呕吐,PONV)或谵妄发生率报告;S为RCT。拔管时间定义为从ICU入院到拔管的时间。资料收集与分析:两位研究者独立进行文献筛选、数据提取、文献质量评价,并交叉核对后达成共识。主要结果:纳入15项试验,共1185例患者,其中吸入镇静组568例,静脉镇静组617例。与静脉镇静相比,通过ACD给予吸入镇静可缩短苏醒时间和拔管时间。两组术后恶心呕吐(PONV)发生率无差异。结论:吸入镇静在苏醒时间、拔管时间、ICU LOS(非心脏ICU)方面优于静脉镇静;然而,PONV的发生率没有显著差异。吸入镇静对危重病人可能是安全有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信