Refractory atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response as a heralding sign of propofol infusion syndrome in a patient with COVID-19.

A woman in her 40s was transferred to the medical intensive care unit due to severe COVID-19 infection causing respiratory failure. Her respiratory failure worsened rapidly, requiring intubation and continuous sedation with fentanyl and propofol infusions. She required progressive increases in the rates of the propofol infusion, as well as addition of midazolam and cisatracurium due to ventilator dyssynchrony. To support the high sedative doses, norepinephrine was administered as a continuous infusion. She developed atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, with rates ranging between 180 and 200 s which did not respond to intravenous adenosine, metoprolol, synchronised cardioversion or amiodarone. A blood draw revealed lipaemia, and triglyceride levels were noted to be elevated to 2018. The patient developed high-grade fevers up to 105.3 and acute renal failure with severe mixed respiratory and metabolic acidosis, indicating propofol-related infusion syndrome. Propofol was promptly discontinued. An insulin-dextrose infusion was initiated which improved patient's fevers and hypertriglyceridaemia.

[Appropriate Use and Abuse of Sedative-Hypnotic Drugs].

The incidence of insomnia has been increasing in recent years. In addition, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people are experiencing a variety of insomniac problems, including having difficulty in sleep initation, waking up too early, and short sleep duration. Chronic insomnia may seriously affect patients' life and work, increase their risks of developing physical and mental illnesses, and cause crushing social and economic burdens. Sedative-hypnotics, including benzodiazepine agonists, melatonin receptor agonists, orexin receptor antagonists, and antidepressants with hypnotic effects, are widely used to treat most patients suffering from insomnia. However, there is the phenomenon of the non-medical use and abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs, especially benzodiazepine receptor agonists. The abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs may lead to mental and physical dependence, cognitive impairment, depression and anxiety, as well as an increased risks of falls and death. Therefore, drug regulatory authorities in China and other countries have issued relevant policies to reinforce regulation. Herein, we reviewed the prevalent use and safety of sedative-hypnotic drugs and proposed suggestions concerning their appropriate use. Both the efficacy and safety of sedative-hypnotic drugs should be carefully considered so that patients suffering from insomnia receive thorough and prompt treatment and the problem of potential abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs is assessed in an objective and scientific manner. We also hope to provide references for the standardized clinical use of insomnia drugs.

The incidence of propofol infusion syndrome in critically-ill patients.

PURPOSE: PRIS is a potentially fatal syndrome characterized by various clinical symptoms and abnormalities. Experts suggest that propofol treatment duration ≥48 h or dose ≥83 µg/kg/min is associated with developing PRIS. We hypothesized PRIS might be underdiagnosed due to the overlap of PRIS clinical manifestations with critical illnesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multihospital, retrospective study of adult patients who received continuous propofol infusion ≥48 h or dose ≥60µg/kg/min for >24 h since admission were assessed for the development of PRIS. RESULTS: The incidence of PRIS was 2.9% with a PRIS-associated mortality rate of 36.8%. In PRIS patients, propofol was administered at a median dose of 36.4 µg/kg/min and over a median duration of 147.0 h. The development of PRIS was observed at a median of 125.0 h post-propofol initiation and a cumulative dose of 276.5 mg/kg. The development of metabolic acidosis (78.9%), cardiac dysfunction (52.6%), hypertriglyceridemia (100%), and rhabdomyolysis (26.3%) were observed in our PRIS patients. CONCLUSION: PRIS can often be overlooked and underdiagnosed. It is important to monitor for early signs of PRIS in patients who are on prolonged propofol infusion. Prompt recognition and interventions can minimize the dangers resulting from PRIS.

Long-term ketamine infusion-induced cholestatic liver injury in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A higher-than-usual resistance to standard sedation regimens in COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has led to the frequent use of the second-line anaesthetic agent ketamine. Simultaneously, an increased incidence of cholangiopathies in mechanically ventilated patients receiving prolonged infusion of high-dose ketamine has been noted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate a potential dose-response relationship between ketamine and bilirubin levels. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients suffering from COVID-19-associated ARDS between March 2020 and August 2021. A time-varying, multivariable adjusted, cumulative weighted exposure mixed-effects model was employed to analyse the exposure-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and total bilirubin levels. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-three critically ill patients were included into the analysis. Ketamine was infused to 170 (70%) patients at a rate of 1.4 [0.9-2.0] mg/kg/h for 9 [4-18] days. The mixed-effects model revealed a positively correlated infusion duration-effect as well as dose-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and rising bilirubin levels (p < 0.0001). In comparison, long-term infusion of propofol and sufentanil, even at high doses, was not associated with increasing bilirubin levels (p = 0.421, p = 0.258). Patients having received ketamine infusion had a multivariable adjusted competing risk hazard of developing a cholestatic liver injury during their ICU stay of 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-7.8] (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A causally plausible, dose-effect relationship between long-term infusion of ketamine and rising total bilirubin levels, as well as an augmented, ketamine-associated, hazard of cholestatic liver injury in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be shown. High-dose ketamine should be refrained from whenever possible for the long-term analgosedation of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Study protocol to test the efficacy of self-administration of dexmedetomidine sedative therapy on anxiety, delirium, and ventilator days in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: an open-label randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Administration of sedative and opioid medications to patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support in the intensive care unit is a common clinical practice. METHODS: A two-site randomized open-label clinical trial will test the efficacy of self-management of sedative therapy with dexmedetomidine compared to usual care on anxiety, delirium, and duration of ventilatory support after randomization. Secondary objectives are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on level of alertness, total aggregate sedative and opioid medication exposure, and ventilator-free days up to day 28 after study enrolment. Exploratory objectives of the study are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on 3- and 6-month post-discharge physical and functional status, psychological well-being (depression, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder), health-related quality of life, and recollections of ICU care. ICU patients (n = 190) who are alert enough to follow commands to self-manage sedative therapy are randomly assigned to self-management of sedative therapy or usual care. Patients remain in the ICU sedative medication study phase for up to 7 days as long as mechanically ventilated. DISCUSSION: The care of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients can change significantly over the course of a 5-year clinical trial. Changes in sedation and pain interventions, oxygenation approaches, and standards related to extubation have substantially impacted consistency in the number of eligible patients over time. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in mandated extended pauses in trial enrolment as well as alterations in recruitment methods out of concern for study personnel safety and availability of protective equipment. Patient triaging among healthcare institutions due to COVID-19 cases also has resulted in inconsistent access to the eligible study population. This has made it even more imperative for the study team to be flexible and innovative to identify and enrol all eligible participants. Patient-controlled sedation is a novel approach to the management of patient symptoms that may be able to alleviate mechanical ventilation-induced distress without serious side effects. Findings from this study will provide insight into the efficacy of this approach on short- and long-term outcomes in a subset of mechanically ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02819141. Registered on June 29, 2016.

Use of sedative-hypnotic medications and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Growing evidence suggests an association between the use of sedative-hypnotic medications and risk of dementia. The aim of this study is to examine this association using a meta-analysis approach. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were systematically searched for studies published in English only. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and an overall odds ratio was pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were included in the analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dementia from all records were (OR; 1.33, 95% CI 1.19-1.49) for benzodiazepine (BZD) combined use (Subgroup-1), (OR: 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.73) for short-acting BZD use (Subgroup-2), (OR: 1.72, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) for long-acting BZD use (Subgroup-3), (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.32) for BZDs without specification of duration of action (Subgroup-4), (OR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.13-2.38) for the combined BZDs and Z-drugs, (OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) for Z-drugs only, (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) for antidepressant use, (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.39) for antipsychotic use and (OR: 0.98, 95% CI 0.85-1.13) for anticonvulsant use. When sensitivity analysis was performed, association between overall use of BZDs and short-acting BZDs with the increased risk of dementia disappeared after exclusion of studies that were not adjusted for age covariate (OR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.44) and (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 0.75-2.01), respectively. Adjustment for protopathic bias by introduction of a lag period showed no evidence of increased risk of dementia with the use of BZDs (Subgroup-1) (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.58), Z-drugs (OR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78-2.13), and combined BZDs and Z-drugs (OR: 1.51, 95% CI 0.91-2.53). Combined use of BZDs and Z-drugs showed more positive association when only studies of non-user design were analysed (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 2.23-3.39). CONCLUSIONS: All the investigated sedative-hypnotics showed no association with increased risk of dementia except for BZDs. However, the observed association with BZDs did not persist after exclusion of studies with potential reverse causation and confounding by indication. Therefore, this association needs to be assessed carefully in future research.

Reducing sedated lumbar punctures in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Sedation for lumbar punctures (LPs) in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients has been the standard for decades to reduce pain and anxiety. Recent studies on the potential long-term neurocognitive effects of cumulative propofol exposure have raised concerns about this practice. The recent pandemic introduced additional burdens to patients, with the requirement of a negative COVID-19 test prior to each sedated procedure. PROCEDURE: These factors prompted a quality improvement intervention at our institution where we aimed to reduce postinduction sedated LPs by 50%. Our intervention included patient and family education, followed by a simulation of the procedure for selected patients. Those converted to unsedated LPs were queried for their preference. Comparative cost, clinical time, and LP success rates were collected for sedated and unsedated LPs. RESULTS: Following the intervention, the percentage of LPs performed with sedation dropped from 100% to 48%. All LPs were successful using both techniques. Most patients who experienced the unsedated LP technique, and their guardians, strongly preferred this approach. Unsedated LPs significantly reduced clinical time (169 vs. 83 minutes) for families, decreased expenditures ($5736 reduction per procedure), and improved institutional opportunity cost due to a decrease in last-minute cancelations. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is feasible to significantly reduce the use of sedation for LPs in patients with ALL, which has the potential to improve health and patient experience at a lower cost.

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

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome). METHODS: Charts 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. RESULTS: Patients' 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-1; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg∙hour-1∙kg-1ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720-960] versus 1080 [720-1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (- 4.0 [- 4.0 to - 3.0] versus - 3.0 [- 3.6 to - 2.5]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane 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.

Feasibility of sit training for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia during deep sedation: A case report.

RATIONALE: There have been a few reports on the early rehabilitation of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and none on the effectiveness and adverse events of early mobilization for mechanical ventilation patients (other than COVID-19) during deep sedation. This report indicates that sitting without adverse events is possible in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia during deep sedation with muscle relaxation. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 65-year-old man with a history of diabetes mellitus, lacunar infarction, and Parkinson's disease was admitted to a local hospital for pneumonia due to COVID-19. After admission, the patient was managed on a ventilator under deep sedation with muscle relaxants and sedatives. Twelve days after admission, the patient was transferred to our hospital due to his worsening respiratory status. DIAGNOSIS: Pneumonia due to COVID-19 was diagnosed using a polymerase chain reaction-dependent method. INTERVENTIONS: The day following transfer, a physical therapist started passive range of motion training and sitting. OUTCOMES: The period spanning his initial rehabilitation to muscle relaxant medication interruption was 9 days, and he underwent 7 rehabilitation sessions. The patient was unable to sit during only one of the 7 sessions due to pre-rehabilitation hypoxemia. In 5 of the 6 sitting sessions, PaO2/FiO2 transiently decreased but recovered by the time of subsequent blood sampling. The patient's PaCO2 decreased during all sessions. His blood pressure did not drastically decrease in any sitting session, except the first. Sputum excretion via sputum suction increased during sitting, and peak inspiratory pressure did not change. LESSONS: The patient eventually died of pneumonia due to COVID-19. However, sitting during deep sedation with muscle relaxants did not cause any serious adverse events nor did it appear to cause obvious negative respiratory effects.

Association of Sedation, Coma, and In-Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, sedatives and opioids are commonly administered which may lead to increased vulnerability to neurologic dysfunction. We tested the hypothesis that patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome are at higher risk of in-hospital mortality due to prolonged coma compared with other patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome matched for disease severity. DESIGN: Propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in an academic hospital network, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA). PATIENTS: All mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients between March and May 2020 were identified and matched with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using clinical data obtained from a hospital registry, we matched 114 coronavirus disease 2019 patients to 228 noncoronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome patients based on baseline disease severity. Coma was identified using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale less than or equal to -3. Multivariable logistic regression and mediation analyses were used to assess the percentage of comatose days, sedative medications used, and the association between coronavirus disease 2019 and in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality (48.3% vs 31.6%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.34-3.44; p = 0.002), the percentage of comatose days (66.0% ± 31.3% vs 36.0% ± 36.9%, adjusted difference, 29.35; 95% CI, 21.45-37.24; p < 0.001), and the hypnotic agent dose (51.3% vs 17.1% of maximum hypnotic agent dose given in the cohort; p < 0.001) were higher among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Brain imaging did not show a higher frequency of structural brain lesions in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (6.1% vs 7.0%; p = 0.76). Hypnotic agent dose was associated with coma (adjusted coefficient, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78; p < 0.001) and mediated (p = 0.001) coma. Coma was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 5.84; 95% CI, 3.58-9.58; p < 0.001) and mediated 59% of in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with matched patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 received higher doses of hypnotics, which was associated with prolonged coma and higher mortality.

[Challenges for psychotropics in the context of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic]. / Enjeux de l'utilisation des psychotropes dans le cadre de la pandémie au SARS-Cov-2.

French recommendations have been proposed for psychotropics use and possible adaptations during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Between uncertainties linked to the lack of data and speculations about possible benefits of psychotropics against the coronavirus, we propose here elements allowing to base the pharmacotherapeutic decisions potentially useful in Covid+ patients with psychiatric disorders.