Yamamoto Taihei, Kotani Yuki, Akutagawa Koya, Nagayama Tomohisa, Tomimatsu Maho, Tonai Mayuko, Karumai Toshiyuki, Hayashi Yoshiro
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Kameda Medical Center, 929 Higashi-cho, Kamogawa, 296-8602, Japan.
Emergency and Trauma Center, Kameda Medical Center, Kamogawa, Japan.
Crit Care. 2025 Jun 5;29(1):227. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05467-8.
Volatile sedation has been associated with lung-protective effects, attenuation of inflammatory responses, and reduced organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. However, whether these potential benefits may translate into improvements in clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. The primary aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to test the hypothesis that volatile sedation, compared to intravenous sedation, would reduce mortality in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation.
This study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023458064). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception until March 18, 2025, for RCTs comparing volatile sedatives with intravenous sedatives in critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. The secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting, atrial fibrillation, and time from sedative discontinuation to extubation. A random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis was used for data synthesis. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the robustness of the pooled data for the primary outcome.
We included 21 RCTs, comprising 2367 patients. Compared to intravenous sedation, volatile sedation may increase mortality at the longest follow-up (262/1107 vs. 218/1106; relative risk: 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.35; low certainty). However, TSA suggested a lack of definitive conclusion, as the required sample size was 12,080. No meaningful effects were observed on secondary outcomes, except for slightly shortened time from sedation termination to extubation (mean difference, - 90.62 min; 95% confidence interval, - 124.64 to - 56.60; low certainty), CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs showed that, compared to intravenous sedation, volatile sedation may increase mortality among mechanically ventilated critically ill adults. Based on the current randomized evidence, its use in the ICU should be limited to carefully selected clinical scenarios. Further research is needed to identify patient populations that may benefit from this sedation strategy.
挥发性镇静已被证明对重症患者具有肺保护作用、减轻炎症反应并减少器官功能障碍。然而,这些潜在益处是否能转化为临床相关结局的改善仍不清楚。本随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析的主要目的是检验以下假设:与静脉镇静相比,挥发性镇静可降低接受机械通气的成年重症患者的死亡率。
本研究已在PROSPERO数据库(CRD42023458064)中注册。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆自建库至2025年3月18日期间,比较挥发性镇静剂与静脉镇静剂在接受有创机械通气的重症患者中的RCT。主要结局是最长随访期的死亡率。次要结局包括机械通气时间、住院时间和重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、低血压、急性肾损伤、谵妄、术后恶心呕吐、心房颤动,以及从停用镇静剂到拔管的时间。采用随机效应Mantel-Haenszel荟萃分析进行数据合成。进行试验序贯分析(TSA)以评估主要结局汇总数据的稳健性。
我们纳入了21项RCT,共2367例患者。与静脉镇静相比,挥发性镇静在最长随访期可能增加死亡率(262/1107 vs. 218/1106;相对风险:1.17;95%置信区间,1.02至1.35;低确定性)。然而,TSA表明缺乏明确结论,因为所需样本量为12,080。除了从镇静终止到拔管的时间略有缩短外(平均差异,-90.62分钟;95%置信区间,-124.64至-56.60;低确定性),未观察到对次要结局有有意义的影响。
这项RCT的荟萃分析表明,与静脉镇静相比,挥发性镇静可能增加机械通气的成年重症患者的死亡率。基于目前的随机证据,其在ICU中的使用应限于精心选择的临床场景。需要进一步研究以确定可能从这种镇静策略中获益的患者群体。