Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dexmedetomidine (Dexdor ® ) is a highly selective α 2 -adrenoceptor agonist. It has sedative, analgesic and opioid-sparing effects and is suitable for short- and longer-term sedation in an intensive care setting. In the randomized, double-blind, multicentre MIDEX and PRODEX trials, longer-term sedation with dexmedetomidine was noninferior to midazolam and propofol in terms of time spent at the target sedation range, as well as being associated with a shorter time to extubation than midazolam or propofol, and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine were also easier to rouse, more co-operative and better able to communicate than patients receiving midazolam or propofol. Dexmedetomidine had beneficial effects on delirium in some randomized, controlled trials (e.g. patients receiving dexmedetomidine were less likely to experience delirium than patients receiving midazolam, propofol or remifentanil and had more delirium- and coma-free days than patients receiving lorazepam). Intravenous dexmedetomidine had an acceptable tolerability profile; hypotension, hypertension and bradycardia were the most commonly reported adverse reactions. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine is an important option for sedation in the intensive care setting.

Propofol is an intravenous hypnotic drug that is used for induction and maintenance of sedation and general anaesthesia. It exerts its effects through potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABA A receptor, and has gained widespread use due to its favourable drug effect profile. The main adverse effects are disturbances in cardiopulmonary physiology. Due to its narrow therapeutic margin, propofol should only be administered by practitioners trained and experienced in providing general anaesthesia. Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models for propofol exist. Some are used to inform drug dosing guidelines, and some are also implemented in so-called target-controlled infusion devices, to calculate the infusion rates required for user-defined target plasma or effect-site concentrations. Most of the models were designed for use in a specific and well-defined patient category. However, models applicable in a more general population have recently been developed and published. The most recent example is the general purpose propofol model developed by Eleveld and colleagues. Retrospective predictive performance evaluations show that this model performs as well as, or even better than, PK models developed for specific populations, such as adults, children or the obese; however, prospective evaluation of the model is still required. Propofol undergoes extensive PK and PD interactions with both other hypnotic drugs and opioids. PD interactions are the most clinically significant, and, with other hypnotics, tend to be additive, whereas interactions with opioids tend to be highly synergistic. Response surface modelling provides a tool to gain understanding and explore these complex interactions. Visual displays illustrating the effect of these interactions in real time can aid clinicians in optimal drug dosing while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we provide an overview of the PK and PD of propofol in order to refresh readers’ knowledge of its clinical applications, while discussing the main avenues of research where significant recent advances have been made.

The agent that should be used for light sedation of patients requiring mechanical ventilation is unclear. This randomized trial compared dexmedetomidine with propofol for the light sedation of critically ill patients with sepsis who required mechanical ventilation. No clinically important differences were found.

Propofol is an intravenous agent used commonly for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, procedural, and critical care sedation in children. The mechanisms of action on the central nervous system involve interactions at various neurotransmitter receptors, especially the gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. Approved for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989, its use for induction of anesthesia in children less than 3 years of age still remains off-label. Despite its wide use in pediatric anesthesia, there is conflicting literature about its safety and serious adverse effects in particular subsets of children. Particularly as children are not “little adults”, in this review, we emphasize the maturational aspects of propofol pharmacokinetics. Despite the myriad of propofol pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies and the ability to use allometrical scaling to smooth out differences due to size and age, there is no optimal model that can be used in target controlled infusion pumps for providing closed loop total intravenous anesthesia in children. As the commercial formulation of propofol is a nutrient-rich emulsion, the risk for bacterial contamination exists despite the Food and Drug Administration mandating addition of antimicrobial preservative, calling for manufacturers’ directions to discard open vials after 6 h. While propofol has advantages over inhalation anesthesia such as less postoperative nausea and emergence delirium in children, pain on injection remains a problem even with newer formulations. Propofol is known to depress mitochondrial function by its action as an uncoupling agent in oxidative phosphorylation. This has implications for children with mitochondrial diseases and the occurrence of propofol-related infusion syndrome, a rare but seriously life-threatening complication of propofol. At the time of this review, there is no direct evidence in humans for propofol-induced neurotoxicity to the infant brain; however, current concerns of neuroapoptosis in developing brains induced by propofol persist and continue to be a focus of research.

Dexmedetomidine is an α 2 -adrenoceptor agonist with sedative, anxiolytic, sympatholytic, and analgesic-sparing effects, and minimal depression of respiratory function. It is potent and highly selective for α 2 -receptors with an α 2 :α 1 ratio of 1620:1. Hemodynamic effects, which include transient hypertension, bradycardia, and hypotension, result from the drug’s peripheral vasoconstrictive and sympatholytic properties. Dexmedetomidine exerts its hypnotic action through activation of central pre- and postsynaptic α 2 -receptors in the locus coeruleus, thereby inducting a state of unconsciousness similar to natural sleep, with the unique aspect that patients remain easily rousable and cooperative. Dexmedetomidine is rapidly distributed and is mainly hepatically metabolized into inactive metabolites by glucuronidation and hydroxylation. A high inter-individual variability in dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics has been described, especially in the intensive care unit population. In recent years, multiple pharmacokinetic non-compartmental analyses as well as population pharmacokinetic studies have been performed. Body size, hepatic impairment, and presumably plasma albumin and cardiac output have a significant impact on dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics. Results regarding other covariates remain inconclusive and warrant further research. Although initially approved for intravenous use for up to 24 h in the adult intensive care unit population only, applications of dexmedetomidine in clinical practice have been widened over the past few years. Procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine was additionally approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2003 and dexmedetomidine has appeared useful in multiple off-label applications such as pediatric sedation, intranasal or buccal administration, and use as an adjuvant to local analgesia techniques.

Background In critically ill patients, poor patient-ventilator interaction may worsen outcomes. Although sedatives are often administered to improve comfort and facilitate ventilation, they can be deleterious. Whether opioids improve asynchronies with fewer negative effects is unknown. We hypothesized that opioids alone would improve asynchronies and result in more wakeful patients than sedatives alone or sedatives-plus-opioids. Methods This prospective multicenter observational trial enrolled critically ill adults mechanically ventilated (MV) > 24 h. We compared asynchronies and sedation depth in patients receiving sedatives, opioids, or both. We recorded sedation level and doses of sedatives and opioids. BetterCare™ software continuously registered ineffective inspiratory efforts during expiration (IEE), double cycling (DC), and asynchrony index (AI) as well as MV modes. All variables were averaged per day. We used linear mixed-effects models to analyze the relationships between asynchronies, sedation level, and sedative and opioid doses. Results In 79 patients, 14,166,469 breaths were recorded during 579 days of MV. Overall asynchronies were not significantly different in days classified as sedatives-only, opioids-only, and sedatives-plus-opioids and were more prevalent in days classified as no-drugs than in those classified as sedatives-plus-opioids, irrespective of the ventilatory mode. Sedative doses were associated with sedation level and with reduced DC ( p  < 0.0001) in sedatives-only days. However, on days classified as sedatives-plus-opioids, higher sedative doses and deeper sedation had more IEE ( p  < 0.0001) and higher AI ( p  = 0.0004). Opioid dosing was inversely associated with overall asynchronies ( p  < 0.001) without worsening sedation levels into morbid ranges. Conclusions Sedatives, whether alone or combined with opioids, do not result in better patient-ventilator interaction than opioids alone, in any ventilatory mode. Higher opioid dose (alone or with sedatives) was associated with lower AI without depressing consciousness. Higher sedative doses administered alone were associated only with less DC. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03451461

Remimazolam (Anerem ® in Japan; ByFavo™ in the USA; Aptimyda™ in the EU) is an ultra-short-acting intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine sedative/anesthetic being developed by PAION AG in conjunction with a number of commercial partners for use in anesthesia and procedural sedation. Remimazolam was approved on 23 January 2020 in Japan for use in general anesthesia in adult patients. Remimazolam is also undergoing regulatory assessment in South Korea for this indication and for use in procedural sedation in the USA, the EU and China. This article summarises the major milestones in the development of remimazolam for this first approval for the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia, and its potential upcoming approvals in general anaesthesia and procedural sedation.

Xylazine is not a controlled substance; it is marketed as a veterinary drug and used as a sedative, analgesic and muscle relaxant. In humans, it could cause central nervous system depression, respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension, and even death. There have been publications of 43 cases of xylazine intoxication in humans, in which 21 (49%) were non-fatal scenarios and 22 (51%) resulted in fatalities. Most of the non-fatal cases required medical intervention. Over recent years xylazine has emerged as an adulterant in recreational drugs, such as heroin or speedball (a cocaine and heroin mixture). From the 43 reported cases, 17 (40%) were associated with the use of xylazine as an adulterant of drugs of abuse. Its chronic use is reported to be associated with physical deterioration and skin ulceration. Literature shows some similar pharmacologic effects between xylazine and heroin in humans. These similar pharmacologic effects may create synergistic toxic effects in humans. Therefore, fatalities among drug users may increase due to the use of xylazine as an adulterant. Xylazine alone has proven harmful to humans and even more when it is combined with drugs of abuse. A comprehensive review of the literature of non-fatal and fatal xylazine intoxication cases including those in which the substance was used as adulterant is presented, in order to increase the awareness in the forensic community, law enforcement, and public health agencies.

Background Anticholinergic and/or sedative mediations are one of the most commonly prescribed medication groups in older adults. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of anticholinergic and/or sedative mediations use in community dwelling older adults as well as potentially associated factors with their use. Methods A cross sectional study was conducted among community dwelling older adults who accepted invitation for geriatric screening in the Public Education Centres (PEC) in Türkiye. The subgroup study population was selected among those who used at least one medication. The prevalence of anticholinergic and/or sedative mediations use, comprehensive geriatric tests, drug–drug interactions and polypharmacy were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to identify associated factors with anticholinergic and/or sedative mediations use. Results A total of 608 older adults voluntarily participated in the study from the 16 PEC. Among these 372 were eligible (61%). The prevalence of anticholinergic and/or sedative medications use was 36% among the community dwelling older adults. Polypharmacy was present in 32% of the them. Drug–drug interactions involved anticholinergic and/or sedative medications was common (42%). Polypharmacy ( p  < 0.001) and poor physical function (frailty, p  = 0.026; sarcopenia, p  = 0.003; instrumental activities of daily living, p  = 0.001; and activities of daily living, p  = 0.045) were found to be associated with the use of anticholinergic and/or sedative medications in this study. Conclusions With common anticholinergic and/or sedative mediations use and its associated risk for polypharmacy, poor physical function and drug-drug interactions, their use must be balanced with their potential risks and benefits.

Daily interruption of sedative therapy and limitation of deep sedation have been shown in several randomized trials to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital length of stay, and to improve the outcome of critically ill patients. However, patients with severe acute brain injury (ABI; including subjects with coma after traumatic brain injury, ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, cardiac arrest, status epilepticus) were excluded from these studies. Therefore, whether the new paradigm of minimal sedation can be translated to the neuro-ICU (NICU) is unclear. In patients with ABI, sedation has ‘general’ indications (control of anxiety, pain, discomfort, agitation, facilitation of mechanical ventilation) and ‘neuro-specific’ indications (reduction of cerebral metabolic demand, improved brain tolerance to ischaemia). Sedation also is an essential therapeutic component of intracranial pressure therapy, targeted temperature management and seizure control. Given the lack of large trials which have evaluated clinically relevant endpoints, sedative selection depends on the effect of each agent on cerebral and systemic haemodynamics. Titration and withdrawal of sedation in the NICU setting has to be balanced between the risk that interrupting sedation might exacerbate brain injury (e.g. intracranial pressure elevation) and the potential benefits of enhanced neurological function and reduced complications. In this review, we provide a concise summary of cerebral physiologic effects of sedatives and analgesics, the advantages/disadvantages of each agent, the comparative effects of standard sedatives (propofol and midazolam) and the emerging role of alternative drugs (ketamine). We suggest a pragmatic approach for the use of sedation-analgesia in the NICU, focusing on some practical aspects, including optimal titration and management of sedation withdrawal according to ABI severity.