The use of sedatives in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is essential for relieving anxiety and stress in mechanically ventilated patients, and it is related to clinical outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay in the ICU. Inhaled sedatives offer benefits such as faster awakening and extubation, decreased total opioid and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMB) doses, as well as bronchodilator, anticonvulsant, and cardiopulmonary and neurological protective effects. Inhaled sedation is administered using a specific vaporizer. Isoflurane is the recommended agent due to its efficacy and safety profile. Inhaled sedation is recommended for moderate and deep sedation, prolonged sedation, difficult sedation, patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), status asthmaticus, and super-refractory status epilepticus. By offering these significant advantages, the use of inhaled sedatives allows for a personalized and controlled approach to optimize sedation in the ICU.

Survivors of critical illness may present physical, psychological, or cognitive symptoms after hospital discharge, encompassed within what is known as post-intensive care syndrome. These alterations result from both the critical illness itself and the medical interventions surrounding it. For its prevention, the implementation of the ABCDEF bundle (Assess/treat pain, Breathing/awakening trials, Choice of sedatives, Delirium reduction, Early mobility and exercise, Family) has been proposed, along with additional strategies grouped under the acronym GHIRN (Good communication, Handout materials, Redefined ICU architectural design, Respirator, Nutrition). In addition to these preventive measures during the ICU stay, high-risk patients should be identified for subsequent follow-up through multidisciplinary teams coordinated by Intensive Care Medicine Departments.

BACKGROUND: Patients should be closely monitored during procedures under sedation outside the operating room, but it is unclear which type of monitoring is best. We investigated the efficacy and safety of BIS monitoring vs conventional monitoring for sedation during colonoscopy.
METHODS: We performed a double-blind clinical trial in 180 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to 1) the BIS group or 2) a control group, in which sedation was monitored with a BIS monitor or the Ramsay Sedation Score, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of sedation-induced adverse events in both groups. Secondary outcomes were the characteristics of patients who developed adverse events, and time during colonoscopy when these events occurred, propofol and remifentanil dosage, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed fewer cardiopulmonary complications in the BIS group (41.11% vs 57.78% in controls; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis found a significantly higher risk of adverse events in older patients (95% CI, 1.013-1.091; p = 0.0087) and in men (95% CI, 1.129-7.668; p = 0.0272). These events were observed at the hepatic flexure. No significant differences between propofol or remifentanil dosage, use of rescue medication, and patient satisfaction were observed between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that BIS monitoring during sedation in scheduled colonoscopies reduces adverse respiratory events. Although its routine use in sedation does not appear to be warranted, clinicians should take steps to identify patients with a higher risk of complications who might benefit from this type of monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis is a therapeutic alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The procedure is traditionally performed under general anaesthesia; however, sedation is now gaining in popularity because it reduces the need for vasoactive drugs and shortens the patient\'s stay in the critical care unit and on the ward. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety and potential benefits of sedation with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis in terms of haemodynamic and respiratory complications.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 222 patients that had undergone percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis between 2012 and 2019 under sedation with either dexmedetomidine plus remifentanil (DEX-RMF) or propofol plus remifentanil (PROPO-RMF). We collected data on complications, mainly haemodynamic and respiratory, during and after the procedure.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol (in combination with remifentanil) in terms of haemodynamic stability and intraprocedural cerebral blood oxygen. In the DEX-RMF group, however, mean blood pressure, midazolam dose, and duration of anaesthesia were lower compared with the PROPO-RMF group, but the incidence of haemodynamic and respiratory complications did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that sedation, particularly with adjuvant dexmedetomidine, is a valid anaesthetic techniques in percutaneous aortic valve prosthesis implantation.

This group is a product of the collaboration agreement signed by SOMIAMA (Sociedad de Medicina Intensiva de Madrid) and SAR MADRID (Sociedad de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor de Madrid) under which the organisations agreed to create joint working groups to improve critical patient care. Pain, discomfort, agitation, and delirium cause suffering, delay discharge, and can lead to serious complications in patients admitted to medical and surgical critical care units and post-anaesthesia care units. The main objectives in this type of unit include: Ensuring the comfort of patients suffering or recovering from a critical illness.Avoiding complications associated with the measures, particularly pharmacological, taken to ensure that comfort.

Restoration of cerebral circulation in the ischemic area is the most critical treatment task for reducing irreversible neuronal injury in ischemic stroke patients. The recanalización of appropriately selected patients became indispensable for improving clinical outcomes and resulted in the widespread revascularization techniques. There is no clear answer as to which anesthetic modality to use in ischemic stroke patients undergoing neuro-endovascular procedures. The purpose of this systematic review is to conduct a qualitative analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (RSs & MAs) comparing general anesthesia and non-general anesthesia methods for cerebral endovascular interventions in acute ischemic stroke patients. We developed a protocol with the inclusion and exclusion criteria for matched publications and conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. The literature search yielded 52 potential publications. Ten relevant RSs & MAs were included and analysed in this review. The decision about which anesthesia method to use for endovascular procedures in managing acute ischemic stroke patients should be made based on the patient\'s personal characteristics, pathophysiological phenotypes, clinical characteristics, and institutional experience.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia and sedation are a priority in paediatric intensive care. The combination of ketamine and propofol is a possible option in patients requiring prolonged or difficult sedation and to reduce the use of benzodiazepines and opiates. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of combination ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for prolonged analgesia/sedation in the paediatric intensive care setting.
METHODS: Prospective, observational single-group cohort study in patients aged 1 month to 16 years admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit in 2016-2018 that received ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for analgesia and sedation. We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, analgesia and sedation scores (MAPS, COMFORT-B and SOPHIA), haemodynamic parameters and adverse events.
RESULTS: The study included 32 patients. The maximum dose of ketamine was 1.5 mg/kg/h (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2 mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration was 5 days (IQR, 3-5 days). The maximum dose of propofol was 3.2 mg/kg/h (IQR, 2.5-3.6 mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration, 5 days (IQR, 3-5 days). Thirty (93.7%) patients had previously received midazolam and 29 (90.6%) fentanyl. Analgesia scores did not change after initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion. There was a statistically significant increase in the COMFORT-B score, but the score remained in the adequate sedation range (12-17). There were small but statistically significant decreases in the mean arterial pressure (from 64 mmHg to 60 mmHg; P = .006) and the diastolic blood pressure (from 50.5 to 48 mmHg; P = .023) 1 h after the initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion, but this difference was not observed 12 h later and did not require administration of vasoactive drugs. No other major adverse events were detected during the infusion.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion is a safe treatment in critically ill children that makes it possible to achieve an appropriate level of analgesia and sedation without relevant haemodynamic repercussions.

To comprehensively assess peer-reviewed studies using volatile (VA) or intravenous (i/v) anesthetics for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs), with the hypothesis that the type of sedation may have an impact on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials.
ICUs.
Critically ill and postoperative patients.
None.
Studies comparing VA versus i/v anesthetics used in the ICU settings were independently systematically searched. Finally, 15 studies (1520 patients of predominantly surgical profile needed VA sedation for less than 96h) were included. VA had no impact on all-cause mortality (very low quality of evidence, Odds Ratio=0.82 [0.60-1.12], p=0.20). However, VA were associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.03) and increase in ventilator-free days (p<0.001). VA also reduced postoperative levels of cardiac troponin (24h), time to extubation (p<0.001) and awakening (p=0.04).
In this meta-analysis, volatile sedation vs propofol caused the increase in ventilator-free days, the reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation and the troponin release in medical or surgical ICU patients, while in surgical ICU patients the time to awakening was shortened.

To assess the mean time to hypnosis, hemodynamic stability, and incidence of complications associated with the administration of 70mg/kg oral chloral hydrate in children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Prospective study conducted from January 2000 to January 2020 in which 3132 patients aged between one day and 5 years underwent MRI under anaesthesia in an outpatient setting. The study population was divided into 4 subgroups: A) aged between one and 30 days; B) aged between one month and one year; C) aged between one and 3 years, and D) aged between 3 and 5 years. Study variables were: sex, age, type of examination, mean imaging time, mean time to awakening, heart rate before and after MRI, SatO2, and incidence of complications such as respiratory depression (SatO2 below 90%), agitation during the MRI or on awakening (intense crying lasting more than 2min), prolonged sedation measured on the Steward scale, and nausea and/or vomiting during the MRI, on awakening, or at home.
No notable hemodynamic alterations were observed. The incidence of desaturation was .41%, awakening during the test was .16%, prolonged sedation was 1.08%, and agitated awakening was 1.46%. Nausea and vomiting at the end of the test had an incidence of .73%. The P value in all cases was <.05%.
Chloral hydrate at a dose of 70mg/kg continues to be suitable in sedation lasting no more than one hour for non-invasive procedures in children, and is associated with adequate haemodynamic stability with practically no side effects.

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is a benzodiazepine used for sedation, however, can cause respiratory depression and increases morbidity in patients. Melatonin is an effective alternative to manage anxiety in the perioperative period and could help to reduce the use of benzodiazepines during surgery. The aim of this clinical trial was to determine the efficacy of pre-operative sedation with a single-dose melatonin to reduce intraoperative use of midazolam in women under total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH).
METHODS: This is a double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted in women over 25 years, scheduled for TAH, with American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I or II. Each patient was randomly assigned to receive 5 mg of melatonin prolonged-release oral capsules or placebo. Midazolam use for anesthetic management was the decision of the treating anesthesiologist and sedation status was determined using the observer\'s assessment of alertness/sedation scale.
RESULTS: In patients receiving melatonin, the use of midazolam during surgery was less than in patients receiving placebo. In addition, melatonin produces sedation 30 min after administration, the sedative effect was maintained at 60- and 90-min. Furthermore, hospital stay was shorter in patients who received melatonin (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Melatonin is effective for reduces intraoperative midazolam consumption and hospital stay in women undergoing TAH.
UNASSIGNED: El midazolam es una benzodiazepina utilizada para la sedación, sin embargo, puede causar depresión respiratoria y aumentar la morbilidad en los pacientes. La melatonina es una alternativa eficaz para controlar la ansiedad en el período perioperatorio y podría ayudar a reducir el uso de benzodiazepinas durante la cirugía. El objetivo de este ensayo clínico fue determinar la eficacia de la sedación preoperatoria con una dosis única de melatonina para reducir el uso intraoperatorio de midazolam en mujeres sometidas a histerectomía abdominal total (HTA).
UNASSIGNED: Se trata de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado doble ciego realizado en mujeres mayores de 25 años, programadas para TAH, con American Society of Anesthesiologists Grado I o II. Cada paciente fue asignado al azar para recibir 5 mg de cápsulas orales de liberación prolongada de melatonina o placebo. El uso de midazolam para el manejo anestésico fue decisión del anestesiólogo tratante y el estado de sedación se determinó mediante la escala OAA/S.
RESULTS: En las pacientes que recibieron melatonina, el uso de midazolam durante la cirugía fue menor que en las pacientes que recibieron placebo. Además, la melatonina produce sedación 30 min después de la administración, el efecto sedante se mantuvo a los 60 y 90 min. Además, la estancia hospitalaria fue más corta en los pacientes que recibieron melatonina (p = 0.006).
UNASSIGNED: La melatonina es eficaz para reducir el consumo de midazolam intraoperatorio y la estancia hospitalaria en mujeres sometidas a HTA.