Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34169362›Full record

ArticleJournal of anesthesia2021

Comparison of isoflurane and propofol sedation in critically ill COVID-19 patients-a retrospective chart review.

Azzeddine Kermad, Jacques Speltz, Guy Danziger, Thilo Mertke, Robert Bals, Thomas Volk, Philipp M Lepper, Andreas Meiser

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Azzeddine Kermad *Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany. azzeddine.kermad@uks.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7930-0062
Jacques Speltz *Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Guy DanzigerDepartment of Internal Medicine V-Pulmonology, Allergology and Intensive Care Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Thilo MertkeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Robert BalsDepartment of Internal Medicine V-Pulmonology, Allergology and Intensive Care Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Thomas VolkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Philipp M Lepper *Department of Internal Medicine V-Pulmonology, Allergology and Intensive Care Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Andreas Meiser *Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Saarland University Hospital Medical Center, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany.
Saarland University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

methodsCharts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded.

resultsPatients' age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60-68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21-50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml∙h

conclusionIsoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19IsofluranePropofolCritical IllnessHumansHypnotics and SedativesIntensive Care UnitsMiddle AgedProcedural SedationRespiration, ArtificialRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Hypnotics and SedativesIsofluranePropofolAnaConDaCOVID-19Critical careECMOInhaled sedationIsoflurane

Identifiers

PMID34169362
PMCPMC8225486
OpenAlexW3175681906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.