Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38058786›Full record

ReviewAnnals of thoracic medicine

The advantages of inhalational sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device versus intravenous sedatives in an intensive care unit setting: A systematic review.

Zohair Al Aseri, Mariam Ali Alansari, Sara Ali Al-Shami, Bayan Alaskar, Dhuha Aljumaiah, Alyaa Elhazmi

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of thoracic medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07734350 (Cost-effectiveness of Inhaled Sedation Versus Intravenous Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

NCT07734350 not yet recruitingnot on this map

Cost-effectiveness of Inhaled Sedation Versus Intravenous Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients: a Retrospective ICU Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital H+ QueretaroRan2026 to 2026Enrolled400ConditionsCritical Illness, Mechanical Ventilation, Respiratory InsufficiencyArmsIsoflurane, Propofol (Astra-Zeneca)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Zohair Al AseriDepartment Emergency Medicine and Critical Care, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mariam Ali AlansariDepartment of Adult Critical Care, King Fahad Hospital, Al-Ahsa Health Cluster, Al-Hafouf, Saudi Arabia.
Sara Ali Al-ShamiDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine and Riyadh Hospital, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Bayan AlaskarDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine and Riyadh Hospital, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dhuha AljumaiahDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine and Riyadh Hospital, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alyaa ElhazmiDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dar Al Uloom University · SAAlfaisal University · SAKing Fahad Hospital Hufūf · SAKing Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedation is fundamental to the management of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Its indications in the ICU are vast, including the facilitating of mechanical ventilation, permitting invasive procedures, and managing anxiety and agitation. Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in ICU patients using dedicated devices/systems. Its use may reduce adverse events and improve ICU outcomes compared to conventional intravenous (IV) sedation in the ICU. This review examined the effectiveness of inhalational sedation using the anesthetic conserving device (ACD) compared to standard IV sedation for adult patients in ICU and highlights the technical aspects of its functioning.

methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Sage Journals databases using the terms "anesthetic conserving device," "Anaconda," "sedation" and "intensive care unit" in randomized clinical studies that were performed between 2012 and 2022 and compared volatile sedation using an ACD with IV sedation in terms of time to extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay.

resultsNine trials were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time compared to IV sedation (midazolam or propofol).

conclusionCompared to IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. More clinical trials that assess additional clinical outcomes on a large scale are needed.

Indexed as

Anesthetic conserving deviceinhalation sedationintensive care unitintravenous sedationlength of stay

Identifiers

PMID38058786
PMCPMC10697299
OpenAlexW4387757388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.