SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Volatile sedation in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of mortality risk by respiratory rate-specific quartiles in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in Mexico.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Current evidence does not demonstrate decreased ICU length of stay and delirium incidence associated with the use of volatile sedation in critically ill patients: re-analysis of data from a recent systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- A Multicomponent Communication Intervention to Reduce the Psycho-Emotional Effects of Critical Illness in ICU Patients Related to Their Level of Consciousness: CONECTEM.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sevoflurane is associated with reduced EGFR-VEGF-AKT signaling in glioma tissues relative to propofol: a bioinformatics and clinical pilot study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Sedation level variability an indicator for mortality in mechanical ventilated critically ill patients: a propensity score-weighted cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Invasive ventilator exhaust in critical care: aerosol transmission risks and management strategies-a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSedation 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.
objectiveTo explore the safety and effectiveness of inhaled sedation in critically ill patients. SEARCH
methodsWe 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
resultsFifteen 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.
conclusionInhaled 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.