Küchler Jan, Schwachenwald Bram, Matone Maria V, Tronnier Volker M, Ditz Claudia
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
World Neurosurg. 2024 Nov;191:e214-e226. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.08.097. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
Volatile anesthetics have shown neuroprotective effects in preclinical studies, but clinical data on their use after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are limited. This study aimed to analyze whether the use of volatile anesthetics for neurocritical care sedation affects the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), cerebral vasospasm (CVS), DCI-related infarction, or functional outcome.
Data were retrospectively collected for ventilated aSAH patients (2016-2022), who received sedation for at least 180 hours. For comparative analysis, patients were assigned to a control and a study group according to the sedation used (intravenous vs. volatile sedation). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DCI, CVS, DCI-related infarction, and functional outcome.
Ninety-nine patients with a median age of 58 years (interquartile range: 52-65 years) were included. Forty-seven patients (47%) received intravenous sedation, while 52 patients (53%) received (additional) volatile sedation with isoflurane (n = 30, 58%) or sevoflurane (n = 22, 42%) for a median duration of 169 hours (range: 5-298 hours). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the occurrence of DCI, angiographic CVS, DCI-related infarction, or functional outcome. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the use of volatile anesthetics had no impact on the incidence of DCI-related infarction or the patients' functional outcome.
Volatile sedation in aSAH patients is not associated with the incidence of DCI, CVS, DCI-related infarction, or functional outcome. Although we could not demonstrate neuroprotective effects of volatile anesthetics, our results suggest that volatile sedation after aSAH has no negative effect on the patient's outcome.
挥发性麻醉剂在临床前研究中已显示出神经保护作用,但关于其在动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)后使用的临床数据有限。本研究旨在分析使用挥发性麻醉剂进行神经重症监护镇静是否会影响延迟性脑缺血(DCI)、脑血管痉挛(CVS)、DCI相关梗死或功能结局的发生率。
回顾性收集2016 - 2022年接受通气的aSAH患者的数据,这些患者接受了至少180小时的镇静。为了进行比较分析,根据使用的镇静方法(静脉镇静与挥发性镇静)将患者分为对照组和研究组。进行逻辑回归分析以确定DCI、CVS、DCI相关梗死和功能结局的独立预测因素。
纳入了99例患者,中位年龄为58岁(四分位间距:52 - 65岁)。47例患者(47%)接受静脉镇静,而52例患者(53%)接受(额外)异氟烷(n = 30,58%)或七氟烷(n = 22,42%)的挥发性镇静,中位持续时间为169小时(范围:5 - 298小时)。两组在DCI、血管造影CVS、DCI相关梗死或功能结局的发生方面没有显著差异。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,使用挥发性麻醉剂对DCI相关梗死的发生率或患者的功能结局没有影响。
aSAH患者使用挥发性镇静与DCI、CVS、DCI相关梗死的发生率或功能结局无关。虽然我们未能证明挥发性麻醉剂的神经保护作用,但我们的结果表明,aSAH后使用挥发性镇静对患者的结局没有负面影响。