Sedatives in ICU

Quick Answer

30-Second Summary for CICM Exam:

Sedatives in ICU primarily act via three mechanisms: (1) GABA-A receptor potentiation (propofol, benzodiazepines), (2) alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonism (dexmedetomidine), and (3) NMDA receptor antagonism (ketamine). Propofol is the preferred agent for short-term sedation due to rapid onset/offset and predictable pharmacokinetics, but risk of propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) limits infusion to less than 4 mg/kg/hr. Benzodiazepines (midazolam, lorazepam) accumulate with prolonged use and are associated with increased delirium. Dexmedetomidine provides "cooperative sedation" without respiratory depression, reducing delirium (MENDS trial) and ventilator days (SEDCOM trial), but causes bradycardia and hypotension. Current evidence favors light sedation (RASS 0 to -2), daily sedation interruption, and the ABCDEF bundle to minimize harm. SPICE III trial showed no mortality benefit for dexmedetomidine-based sedation at 90 days. [1,2,3]

---

CICM Exam Focus

What Examiners Expect

First Part Written SAQ Topics:

• GABA-A receptor structure, subunit composition, and chloride conductance
• Mechanism of action of propofol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates at GABA-A receptor
• Alpha-2 adrenoceptor subtypes and signaling pathways
• Context-sensitive half-time calculation and clinical implications
• Propofol pharmacokinetics: three-compartment model, hepatic clearance, protein binding
• Propofol infusion syndrome: pathophysiology, risk factors, management

First Part Viva Topics:

• Compare and contrast propofol vs midazolam for ICU sedation
• Explain context-sensitive half-time with diagram
• Describe the mechanism of dexmedetomidine sedation at the locus coeruleus
• Discuss PRIS: mechanism, diagnosis, management
• Benzodiazepine reversal: flumazenil mechanism, dosing, contraindications

Second Part Written SAQ Topics:

• Sedation strategies: daily interruption vs targeted sedation
• ABCDEF bundle implementation
• Sedation scale selection (RASS, SAS, Ramsay)
• Evidence synthesis: MENDS, SEDCOM, ABC, SPICE III trials
• Sedation in specific populations: ARDS, brain injury, ECMO

Common Exam Stems:

• "A 45-year-old intubated patient requires sedation for mechanical ventilation. Compare propofol and dexmedetomidine."
• "Describe the GABA-A receptor and explain how benzodiazepines and propofol differ in their mechanism."
• "A patient on propofol for 72 hours develops unexplained metabolic acidosis. Discuss your approach."

---

Key Points

10 Must-Know Facts for CICM Exam:

1. GABA-A receptor is a ligand-gated chloride channel composed of five subunits (most commonly 2α, 2β, 1γ); benzodiazepines bind the α-γ interface, propofol binds the β subunit transmembrane domain [4,5]

2. Propofol has rapid onset (30-60 seconds) and offset due to high lipophilicity and redistribution; hepatic clearance is flow-dependent (30-60 mL/kg/min), exceeding hepatic blood flow, indicating extrahepatic metabolism [6,7]

3. Context-sensitive half-time (CSHT) increases with duration of infusion; propofol CSHT after 8 hours is approximately 40 minutes, midazolam CSHT is greater than 4 hours, and dexmedetomidine CSHT is approximately 4 hours [8,9]

4. Propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a potentially fatal complication characterized by metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalaemia, cardiac failure, and lipemia; risk factors include doses greater than 4 mg/kg/hr, infusions longer than 48 hours, catecholamine or steroid co-administration [10,11]

5. Benzodiazepines increase GABA-A receptor opening frequency (NOT duration), while barbiturates increase opening duration; midazolam has active metabolites (1-hydroxymidazolam) that accumulate in renal failure [12,13]

6. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha-2A adrenoceptor agonist (α2:α1 ratio 1620:1) that provides "cooperative sedation" via inhibition of noradrenergic neurons in the locus coeruleus, mimicking natural sleep [14,15]

7. MENDS trial (2007): Dexmedetomidine reduced delirium/coma-free days compared to lorazepam (7.0 vs 3.0 days) in mechanically ventilated patients [16]

8. SEDCOM trial (2009): Dexmedetomidine reduced time to extubation by 1.9 days compared to midazolam, with lower delirium prevalence (54% vs 77%) [17]

9. SPICE III trial (2019): Early dexmedetomidine-based sedation did NOT reduce 90-day mortality compared to usual care (29.1% vs 29.8%; P=0.74), but reduced ventilator days [18]

10. Light sedation (RASS 0 to -2) and daily sedation interruption reduce ventilator days, ICU length of stay, and mortality compared to deep sedation (ABC trial, SLEAP study) [19,20]

---

GABA-A Receptor Physiology

Receptor Structure and Subunit Composition

The GABA-A receptor is the primary mediator of fast inhibitory neurotransmission in the central nervous system and the target for most ICU sedatives.

Molecular Structure:

Subunit Functions:

Chloride Channel Mechanism

GABA Binding and Channel Opening:

GABA (2 molecules) + GABA-A Receptor → Chloride Channel Opening → Cl⁻ Influx → Hyperpolarization → Reduced Neuronal Excitability

Electrophysiology:

Mechanism Comparison of Sedatives at GABA-A Receptor:

Clinical Pearl: Benzodiazepines cannot produce maximal receptor activation alone (ceiling effect), making them safer than barbiturates in overdose. Propofol at high doses can directly activate GABA-A receptors independent of GABA, explaining its greater depth of anesthesia potential. [34]

Allosteric Modulation vs Direct Agonism

Allosteric Modulators (Benzodiazepines):

• Bind at site distinct from GABA binding site
• Require GABA presence for effect
• Increase GABA affinity for receptor
• Increase chloride channel opening FREQUENCY
• Self-limiting (ceiling effect)
• Reversible with flumazenil (competitive antagonist at benzodiazepine site)

Direct Agonists/Modulators (Propofol, Barbiturates):

• Bind β subunit transmembrane region
• At low concentrations: potentiate GABA effect (increase opening DURATION)
• At high concentrations: directly activate channel independent of GABA
• No ceiling effect → can produce profound CNS depression
• No specific reversal agent (propofol has no antagonist)

---

Propofol

Mechanism of Action

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is the most commonly used intravenous sedative in ICU, acting primarily via GABA-A receptor modulation.

Primary Mechanism (GABA-A Receptor):

Secondary Mechanisms:

Pharmacokinetics

Propofol exhibits complex multi-compartmental kinetics with rapid onset and offset.

Physicochemical Properties:

Three-Compartment Model:

Pharmacokinetic Parameters:

Metabolism:

Extrahepatic Metabolism:

Propofol clearance (30-60 mL/kg/min) exceeds hepatic blood flow (25 mL/kg/min), indicating significant extrahepatic metabolism [48]:

• Renal glucuronidation (10-15%)
• Pulmonary metabolism (20-30%)
• Intestinal wall conjugation
• First-pass pulmonary uptake and release

Clinical Implications:

• Hepatic impairment has less effect on propofol clearance than expected
• Renal impairment does not significantly alter clearance
• Obesity increases Vd; use lean body weight (LBW) for induction, total body weight (TBW) for maintenance [49]

Pharmacodynamics

Dose-Response Relationships:

Cardiovascular Effects:

Respiratory Effects:

CNS Effects:

Propofol Infusion Syndrome (PRIS)

Definition: Propofol infusion syndrome is a rare but potentially fatal complication characterized by metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalaemia, hepatomegaly with steatosis, renal failure, and cardiovascular collapse.

Pathophysiology:

Risk Factors:

Clinical Features (Mnemonic: "PRIS FACE"):

Diagnosis:

Management:

Prognosis:

• Mortality: 30-50% historically, improving with early recognition [68]
• Survivors may have prolonged ICU stay, AKI requiring dialysis, myopathy

Prevention:

Propofol Formulation

Standard Formulation (1% or 2% Propofol):

Lipid Load:

• Propofol 1%: 0.1 g fat/mL (100 mg/mL soybean oil)
• At 4 mg/kg/hr = 0.4 g fat/kg/hr = 9.6 g fat/kg/day for 100 kg patient
• Include in total lipid intake calculations for nutrition [69]
• Maximum parenteral lipid: 1-1.5 g/kg/day

Contamination Risk:

• Lipid emulsion supports bacterial growth
• No preservative in standard formulations (some contain EDTA or sodium metabisulfite)
• Single-use vial; discard within 6-12 hours of opening [70]
• Aseptic technique essential
• Documented outbreaks of Staphylococcus, Candida, Pseudomonas [71]

Alternative Formulations:

Injection Pain:

• Common (up to 70% of patients on induction)
• Mechanism: Activation of transient receptor potential channels
• Mitigation: Mix with lidocaine 20-40 mg, use large vein, slow injection [73]

---

Benzodiazepines

Overview and Classification

Benzodiazepines are GABA-A receptor allosteric modulators that increase chloride channel opening frequency in the presence of GABA.

Classification by Duration of Action:

Midazolam

Physicochemical Properties:

Pharmacokinetics:

Metabolism:

Critical Illness Implications:

• CYP3A4 inhibition by inflammation (IL-6) reduces clearance [79]
• 1-hydroxymidazolam accumulates in renal failure (can cause prolonged sedation)
• 1-hydroxymidazolam glucuronide (inactive) also accumulates in renal failure [80]

Drug Interactions (CYP3A4):

Dosing in ICU:

Diazepam

Pharmacokinetics:

Metabolism Pathway:

Diazepam → (CYP3A4) → Temazepam → (conjugation) → Inactive glucuronide
    ↓ (CYP2C19, CYP3A4)
Desmethyldiazepam (t½ 40-200h) → Oxazepam → (conjugation) → Inactive glucuronide

Limitations in ICU:

• Long half-life with active metabolites → unpredictable offset
• Requires propylene glycol vehicle for injection (cardiotoxicity risk)
• Tissue accumulation with repeated dosing
• Not recommended for routine ICU sedation [82]

Indications for Diazepam:

• Alcohol withdrawal (loading dose protocol)
• Status epilepticus (initial management)
• Muscle spasm (tetanus, neuroleptic malignant syndrome)

Lorazepam

Pharmacokinetics:

Metabolism:

• Direct glucuronidation (Phase II) via UGT2B7
• No CYP450 involvement → fewer drug interactions
• Glucuronide conjugate is inactive

Propylene Glycol Toxicity:

Lorazepam injection contains propylene glycol (830 mg/mL) as a solubilizing agent.

Propylene Glycol Accumulation Syndrome:

Risk Factors for Propylene Glycol Toxicity:

• Lorazepam infusion greater than 0.1 mg/kg/hr (greater than 7 mg/hr)
• Duration greater than 48 hours
• Renal impairment (reduced propylene glycol elimination)
• Hepatic impairment (reduced lactate metabolism)

Monitoring:

• Calculate osmolar gap: Measured osmolality - [2×Na + Glucose/18 + BUN/2.8]
• Osmolar gap greater than 10-15 mOsm/kg suggests accumulation
• Monitor for unexplained anion gap acidosis

Dosing in ICU:

Flumazenil Reversal

Mechanism: Flumazenil is a competitive antagonist at the benzodiazepine binding site (α-γ interface) of GABA-A receptors.

Pharmacology:

Dosing:

Contraindications:

Re-sedation Risk:

• Flumazenil half-life (40-80 min) shorter than most benzodiazepines
• Re-sedation occurs in 10-15% of cases
• Observe for minimum 2 hours after last flumazenil dose

---

Dexmedetomidine

Alpha-2 Adrenoceptor Pharmacology

Dexmedetomidine is the pharmacologically active S-enantiomer of medetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonist.

Alpha-2 Adrenoceptor Subtypes:

Selectivity:

• Dexmedetomidine α2:α1 ratio = 1620:1 (highly selective) [15]
• Clonidine α2:α1 ratio = 220:1 (less selective)
• High selectivity minimizes α1-mediated vasoconstriction

Signaling Pathway:

Dexmedetomidine → α2A receptor activation → Gi/Go protein coupling → 
→ Inhibition of adenylyl cyclase → Reduced cAMP →
→ Reduced norepinephrine release from presynaptic terminals →
→ Reduced firing of locus coeruleus neurons →
→ "Natural sleep-like" sedation

Downstream Effects:

• Hyperpolarization via K⁺ channel activation (GIRK channels)
• Inhibition of voltage-gated Ca²⁺ channels
• Reduced neurotransmitter release

Locus Coeruleus and Arousable Sedation

Locus Coeruleus (LC) Anatomy and Function:

Mechanism of Dexmedetomidine Sedation:

Dexmedetomidine inhibits noradrenergic neurons in the locus coeruleus, mimicking the neurophysiology of non-REM sleep.

"Arousable" or "Cooperative" Sedation:

Clinical Pearl: Dexmedetomidine produces a unique sedation state where patients can be aroused for neurological assessment or procedures, then return to sedation when stimulation ceases. This is particularly valuable in neurocritical care for repeated neurological examinations. [91]

Pharmacokinetics

Metabolism:

Excretion:

• 95% renal elimination (as inactive metabolites)
• Less than 1% unchanged drug in urine
• No dose adjustment for renal impairment (metabolites inactive)
• Reduce dose in hepatic impairment (clearance reduced 30-50%) [94]

Pharmacodynamics

Cardiovascular Effects:

Cardiovascular Effect by Dose:

Respiratory Effects:

Clinical Pearl: Dexmedetomidine is one of the few sedatives that can achieve moderate sedation without requiring mechanical ventilation, making it suitable for procedural sedation outside the ICU and for facilitating extubation. [97]

Other Effects:

Clinical Evidence

MENDS Trial (2007):

SEDCOM Trial (2009):

SPICE III Trial (2019):

Dosing in ICU:

Contraindications:

• Second or third-degree heart block (without pacemaker)
• Severe bradycardia (HR less than 50)
• Hemodynamic instability / severe hypotension
• Acute MI with hemodynamic compromise
• Caution: elderly, hypovolemia, concurrent beta-blockers or digoxin

---

Ketamine

NMDA Receptor Pharmacology

Ketamine is a phencyclidine (PCP) derivative that produces "dissociative anesthesia" primarily through N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism.

NMDA Receptor Structure and Function:

Ketamine Mechanism:

Dissociative Anesthesia

Definition: Dissociative anesthesia is a unique state characterized by profound analgesia and amnesia with apparent wakefulness. Patients appear disconnected from their environment ("dissociated") with open eyes, nystagmus, and preserved protective reflexes.

Clinical Features:

Neurophysiology:

• Functional disconnection between thalamo-cortical and limbic systems
• Disruption of normal cortical processing without complete unconsciousness
• EEG shows theta activity, not typical anesthetic patterns

Pharmacokinetics

Physicochemical Properties:

Pharmacokinetic Parameters:

Stereochemistry:

• Ketamine is a racemic mixture of (S)- and (R)-enantiomers
• S-ketamine (esketamine): 3-4× more potent than (R)-ketamine, faster recovery, less emergence phenomena [110]
• S-ketamine available in some countries as separate formulation

Metabolism:

Excretion:

• 90% excreted in urine as metabolites
• Less than 5% unchanged drug
• No dose adjustment for renal impairment (short-term use)
• Reduce dose in hepatic impairment

Pharmacodynamics

Cardiovascular Effects (Sympathomimetic):

Clinical Pearl: Ketamine's sympathomimetic effects make it the induction agent of choice for hemodynamically unstable patients. However, in catecholamine-depleted states (prolonged critical illness, cardiomyopathy), direct myocardial depression may be unmasked. [114]

Respiratory Effects:

CNS Effects:

Emergence Phenomena

Definition: Emergence phenomena are psychotomimetic effects occurring during recovery from ketamine, including vivid dreams, hallucinations, delirium, and feelings of floating or dissociation.

Incidence:

• Adults: 10-30% (higher than children) [118]
• Severe reactions: 5-10%
• May persist for hours

Risk Factors:

• Female sex
• Rapid injection
• Large dose
• Age 15-65 years (lower incidence in children and elderly)
• History of psychiatric illness
• Previous adverse reaction to ketamine

Prophylaxis:

• Benzodiazepines: Midazolam 1-2 mg IV reduces incidence by 50% [119]
• Quiet recovery environment: Minimize stimulation
• Slow emergence: Allow gradual return of consciousness
• Patient warning: Prepare patient pre-procedure

Management:

• Reassurance in calm environment
• Benzodiazepines (midazolam 1-2 mg) for severe reactions
• Time (usually self-limiting within 1-2 hours)

Dosing in ICU:

---

Sedation Scales

Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)

The RASS is the most widely validated and recommended sedation scale for ICU patients.

RASS Scoring:

Assessment Procedure:

1. Observe patient for 30 seconds (score +4 to 0 if obvious)
2. If not alert, call patient's name and ask to open eyes and look at assessor
3. If responds to voice → score -1 to -3
4. If no response to voice, physically stimulate (shoulder shake/sternal rub)
5. If responds to physical stimulation → score -4
6. If no response → score -5

RASS Advantages:

• Validated in medical and surgical ICU patients [123]
• High inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.91)
• Correlates with bispectral index (BIS)
• Recommended by SCCM PADIS guidelines

Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS)

SAS Scoring:

Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS)

RSS Scoring:

Limitations:

• Original scale not validated against objective measures
• Combines agitation (1) and sedation (2-6) without distinction
• Less granular than RASS or SAS

Scale Comparison

---

Sedation Strategies

Daily Sedation Interruption (DSI)

ABC Trial (2008):

DSI Protocol:

1. Hold sedative infusion each morning
2. Allow patient to awaken to RASS 0 or follow commands
3. Assess for spontaneous breathing trial eligibility
4. If SBT passes → consider extubation
5. If SBT fails or patient uncomfortable → restart sedation at 50% of previous rate

Contraindications to DSI:

• Active seizures
• Alcohol/benzodiazepine withdrawal
• Neuromuscular blockade
• Severe agitation requiring restraint
• Intracranial hypertension
• Elevated FiO₂/PEEP requirements
• Hemodynamic instability

Light Sedation Strategy

Evidence for Light Sedation:

Target Sedation Level:

• PADIS Guidelines: Recommend light sedation (RASS 0 to -2) for most ICU patients [127]
• Exception: Deep sedation may be appropriate for severe ARDS, prone positioning, therapeutic hypothermia, or ECMO

ABCDEF Bundle (A2F Bundle)

The ABCDEF bundle is an evidence-based framework for ICU care that reduces delirium, mechanical ventilation, and mortality.

Components:

Evidence for ABCDEF Bundle:

Clinical Pearl: Complete ABCDEF bundle compliance (all elements) reduces hospital mortality by 68% compared to zero compliance. Partial compliance provides proportional benefit. [130]

Sedation Protocol Elements

Target-Directed Sedation Protocol:

1. Assess current RASS score every 2-4 hours
2. Compare to target RASS (usually 0 to -2)
3. If RASS > target (agitated):
   a. Rule out pain (treat if present)
   b. Rule out reversible causes (hypoxia, full bladder, etc.)
   c. Administer sedation bolus PRN
   d. Increase infusion rate by 10-25%
4. If RASS < target (oversedated):
   a. Reduce infusion rate by 10-25%
   b. Consider holding infusion until target achieved
5. Reassess in 30-60 minutes
6. Daily sedation interruption + SBT unless contraindicated

---

Context-Sensitive Half-Time

Definition and Concept

Context-Sensitive Half-Time (CSHT):

CSHT is the time required for the plasma drug concentration to decrease by 50% after stopping a continuous infusion of a given duration. Unlike terminal elimination half-life, CSHT accounts for tissue redistribution and is clinically relevant for predicting recovery.

Formula: CSHT is calculated from pharmacokinetic models and depends on:

• Drug's distribution characteristics (compartmental volumes, inter-compartmental clearances)
• Duration of infusion ("context")
• Elimination clearance

Comparison of ICU Sedatives

Context-Sensitive Half-Time by Infusion Duration:

Key Observations:

Factors Affecting CSHT in Critical Illness

Clinical Application

Predicting Recovery Time:

CSHT can help predict time to awakening after stopping infusion:

• Recovery time ≈ 3-4 × CSHT (for plasma concentration to fall to 10-15% of steady state)
• Propofol after 24h infusion: CSHT ~60 min → expect adequate awakening in 3-4 hours
• Midazolam after 24h infusion: CSHT >8 hours → expect prolonged emergence

Clinical Pearl: When rapid neurological assessment is required (e.g., following neurosurgery, stroke evaluation), propofol is preferred over midazolam due to its short, predictable CSHT. Alternatively, remifentanil can be used for analgesia with ultra-short CSHT. [135]

---

Clinical Applications

Short-Term Sedation (Less than 24 Hours)

Indications:

• Post-operative sedation
• Short-term mechanical ventilation
• Procedural sedation
• Agitation management

Preferred Agents:

Prolonged Sedation (Greater than 48 Hours)

Challenges:

• Drug accumulation
• PRIS risk with propofol
• Benzodiazepine-associated delirium
• Prolonged mechanical ventilation

Strategies:

Propofol vs Dexmedetomidine for Prolonged Sedation:

Procedural Sedation in ICU

Common Procedures Requiring Sedation:

• Bronchoscopy
• Central line insertion
• Chest tube insertion
• Tracheostomy (bedside)
• Cardioversion
• Wound care/dressing changes

Agent Selection:

Special Populations

Brain Injury (TBI, Stroke, SAH):

ARDS and Prone Positioning:

ECMO:

---

Australian and New Zealand Context

TGA Approvals and PBS Listings

Registered Sedatives in Australia:

PBS Restrictions for Dexmedetomidine:

• Authority required for ICU sedation
• Initial limitation: 24 hours
• Extension requires specialist review
• Cost considerations in public hospitals

ANZICS Sedation Practices

ANZICS-CORE Data:

• Sedation practices vary across ANZ ICUs
• Propofol most commonly used sedative
• Dexmedetomidine use increasing
• Light sedation targets increasingly adopted
• Delirium screening (CAM-ICU, ICDSC) variable implementation

ANZICS Sedation Recommendations:

• Target light sedation (RASS 0 to -2) unless specific indication for deep sedation
• Implement ABCDEF bundle elements
• Monitor for delirium with validated tool
• Use analgesic-first approach when possible

Indigenous Health Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Patients:

Māori Patients (New Zealand):

Retrieval Medicine Considerations

Sedation for Aeromedical Retrieval:

---

SAQ Practice Questions

SAQ 1: Propofol Pharmacology and PRIS

Question (15 marks):

A 52-year-old man weighing 110 kg is admitted to ICU with severe community-acquired pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. He has been sedated with propofol infusion at 5 mg/kg/hr for 72 hours. Today, he develops unexplained metabolic acidosis (pH 7.18, lactate 8.2 mmol/L), CK 45,000 U/L, and hyperkalaemia (K 6.8 mmol/L).

a) Describe the mechanism of action of propofol at the GABA-A receptor (3 marks) b) Define propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) and list its clinical features (4 marks) c) Explain the pathophysiology of PRIS (4 marks) d) Outline your management approach for this patient (4 marks)

---

Model Answer:

a) Mechanism of action of propofol at GABA-A receptor (3 marks):

Propofol acts as both an allosteric modulator and direct agonist at the GABA-A receptor:

This differs from benzodiazepines, which bind the α-γ interface and increase opening frequency (not duration) and require GABA for any effect.

---

b) Definition and clinical features of PRIS (4 marks):

Definition: Propofol infusion syndrome is a rare but potentially fatal metabolic derangement characterized by:

• Metabolic acidosis (unexplained, high anion gap)
• Rhabdomyolysis (elevated CK greater than 10,000 U/L)
• Cardiac dysfunction (arrhythmias, cardiogenic shock)
• Hyperkalaemia
• Associated with propofol doses greater than 4 mg/kg/hr and/or duration greater than 48 hours

Clinical Features (Mnemonic: "PRIS FACE"):

---

c) Pathophysiology of PRIS (4 marks):

PRIS results from impaired mitochondrial function and energy failure:

Risk factors in this patient:

• Dose greater than 4 mg/kg/hr (5 mg/kg/hr = 25% above maximum)
• Duration greater than 48 hours (72 hours)
• Critical illness with increased metabolic demands (sepsis)

---

d) Management approach (4 marks):

Immediate Actions:

Supportive Care:

Investigations:

---

SAQ 2: Dexmedetomidine Pharmacology

Question (15 marks):

A 68-year-old woman with COPD is intubated for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. She is weaning from mechanical ventilation and the ICU team wishes to transition to dexmedetomidine for "cooperative sedation."

a) Describe the mechanism of action of dexmedetomidine and explain how it produces sedation at the locus coeruleus (4 marks) b) Compare the pharmacodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems (4 marks) c) Discuss the evidence from the SEDCOM and SPICE III trials regarding dexmedetomidine in ICU sedation (4 marks) d) Outline the contraindications to dexmedetomidine and describe how you would initiate therapy in this patient (3 marks)

---

Model Answer:

a) Mechanism of action and locus coeruleus sedation (4 marks):

Receptor Pharmacology:

Locus Coeruleus (LC) Mechanism:

The locus coeruleus is a paired nucleus in the dorsal pons that is the primary source of norepinephrine to the cortex and other brain regions. Its activity is essential for wakefulness and arousal.

This produces a "natural sleep-like" state that differs from GABA-ergic sedation:

• Patients are arousable to verbal stimuli
• EEG shows spindles and slow waves (non-REM sleep pattern)
• Respiratory drive is preserved

---

b) Comparison of cardiovascular and respiratory effects (4 marks):

Clinical Implications for This Patient:

• COPD with hypercapnic respiratory failure → dexmedetomidine's minimal respiratory depression is advantageous during weaning
• Preserved CO₂ responsiveness supports spontaneous breathing trials
• Bradycardia risk requires monitoring, especially if on beta-blockers

---

c) Evidence from SEDCOM and SPICE III trials (4 marks):

SEDCOM Trial (2009):

SPICE III Trial (2019):

Summary:

• Dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to benzodiazepines (SEDCOM) but not compared to propofol (SPICE III)
• Time to extubation is shorter with dexmedetomidine
• No mortality benefit for early dexmedetomidine-based sedation
• PADIS guidelines recommend dexmedetomidine or propofol over benzodiazepines

---

d) Contraindications and initiation (3 marks):

Contraindications:

Initiation Protocol for This Patient:

For this 68-year-old with COPD:

• Omit loading dose (elderly, risk of bradycardia)
• Start at 0.2 μg/kg/hr
• Target RASS 0 to -1 for weaning readiness
• Prepare for spontaneous breathing trial when RASS target achieved

---

Viva Scenarios

Viva 1: GABA-A Receptor Physiology and Sedative Mechanisms

Scenario:

You are in a CICM First Part viva examination. The examiner presents you with a diagram of the GABA-A receptor and asks you to discuss sedative pharmacology.

---

Examiner: "Describe the structure of the GABA-A receptor."

Candidate: The GABA-A receptor is a ligand-gated ion channel belonging to the Cys-loop superfamily of receptors.

Structure:

• It is a pentameric receptor composed of five subunits arranged around a central chloride-selective pore
• There are 19 known subunit genes: α(1-6), β(1-3), γ(1-3), δ, ε, θ, π, and ρ(1-3)
• The most common stoichiometry in the brain is 2α1, 2β2, and 1γ2

Each subunit has:

• A large extracellular N-terminal domain containing the neurotransmitter binding site
• Four transmembrane domains (TM1-4), with TM2 lining the ion channel
• A large intracellular loop between TM3 and TM4

The ion channel is selective for chloride (and to a lesser extent bicarbonate) ions, with a single-channel conductance of approximately 25-30 picosiemens.

---

Examiner: "Where does GABA bind, and what happens when it does?"

Candidate: GABA binds at the interface between α and β subunits on the extracellular domain. Two GABA molecules must bind for maximal channel activation.

When GABA binds:

1. Conformational change occurs in the receptor
2. The chloride channel opens
3. Chloride ions flow down their electrochemical gradient (typically into the neuron in mature neurons)
4. The neuron hyperpolarizes (membrane potential becomes more negative)
5. Neuronal excitability decreases (inhibitory effect)

The chloride equilibrium potential is approximately -70 to -80 mV, which is more negative than the typical resting membrane potential of -65 mV, so chloride influx causes hyperpolarization.

---

Examiner: "Where do benzodiazepines bind, and how do they differ from propofol in their mechanism?"

Candidate:

Benzodiazepines:

• Bind at the interface between α and γ subunits (extracellular domain)
• This is distinct from the GABA binding site (allosteric site)
• They increase the FREQUENCY of chloride channel opening
• They require GABA to be present for any effect (no direct channel activation)
• They have a ceiling effect - cannot produce maximal receptor activation alone
• This makes them safer in overdose compared to barbiturates
• Flumazenil competitively antagonizes this binding site

Propofol:

• Binds to the β subunit in the transmembrane domain (TM2-TM3 region)
• At clinical concentrations: acts as allosteric modulator, increasing opening DURATION
• At high concentrations: directly activates the channel independent of GABA
• No ceiling effect - can produce profound CNS depression
• Has no specific reversal agent

The key differences are:

1. Binding site: α-γ interface (BZD) vs β transmembrane (propofol)
2. Effect on channel: frequency (BZD) vs duration (propofol)
3. GABA requirement: always needed (BZD) vs not at high doses (propofol)
4. Ceiling effect: present (BZD) vs absent (propofol)
5. Reversibility: flumazenil available (BZD) vs no antagonist (propofol)

---

Examiner: "Explain context-sensitive half-time and how it differs between propofol and midazolam."

Candidate: Context-sensitive half-time (CSHT) is the time required for plasma drug concentration to fall by 50% after stopping a continuous infusion of a given duration. The "context" refers to the duration of infusion.

Why CSHT matters:

• Unlike terminal elimination half-life, CSHT accounts for tissue redistribution
• It predicts clinical recovery time after stopping an infusion
• It varies with infusion duration due to tissue saturation

Comparison:

Why the difference?

Propofol:

• Has a large volume of distribution and rapid redistribution to tissues
• Has high clearance (30-60 mL/kg/min) that exceeds hepatic blood flow
• Has extrahepatic metabolism (lungs, kidneys)
• The peripheral compartments don't fully saturate, so redistribution continues to contribute to concentration decline
• CSHT increases only modestly with prolonged infusion

Midazolam:

• Has lower clearance (5-10 mL/kg/min)
• Has active metabolites (1-hydroxymidazolam) that accumulate
• Peripheral compartments saturate during prolonged infusion
• Once tissues are saturated, redistribution no longer contributes to plasma concentration decline
• CSHT increases dramatically with prolonged infusion

Clinical implication: Propofol is preferred for prolonged sedation when rapid awakening is desirable (e.g., for neurological assessment), while midazolam may lead to prolonged emergence.

---

Examiner: "A patient has been on midazolam for 5 days. What factors would prolong their recovery?"

Candidate: Several factors can prolong recovery from midazolam in this scenario:

Drug-related factors:

• 1-hydroxymidazolam (active metabolite) accumulation - this has 50-80% of the parent drug's activity
• In renal impairment, 1-hydroxymidazolam glucuronide accumulates
• Context-sensitive half-time after 5 days is extremely long (greater than 24 hours)

Patient factors:

Recovery strategies:

• Daily sedation interruption (if not contraindicated) would have minimized accumulation
• Consider flumazenil for diagnostic/therapeutic reversal (but risk of withdrawal seizures after 5 days of use)
• Patient will likely require extended monitoring and supportive care during emergence

---

Viva 2: Propofol Infusion Syndrome

Scenario:

A 35-year-old man was admitted to ICU with severe traumatic brain injury following a motor vehicle accident. He has been sedated with propofol at 5.5 mg/kg/hr for 96 hours. You are called because he has developed metabolic acidosis, elevated CK, and bradycardia.

---

Examiner: "What is your immediate differential diagnosis?"

Candidate: Given this clinical scenario, my primary concern is propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS). However, I would also consider:

The combination of high-dose propofol (5.5 mg/kg/hr, which exceeds the 4 mg/kg/hr safety threshold), prolonged duration (96 hours), unexplained metabolic acidosis, elevated CK, and bradycardia makes PRIS the most likely diagnosis.

---

Examiner: "Describe the pathophysiology of propofol infusion syndrome."

Candidate: PRIS results from mitochondrial dysfunction and impaired cellular energy metabolism:

Primary mechanisms:

1. Electron transport chain inhibition:

   • Propofol and its metabolites inhibit complexes I, II, and IV of the mitochondrial respiratory chain
   • This blocks aerobic ATP production
   • Cells shift to anaerobic metabolism, producing lactate

2. Impaired fatty acid oxidation:

   • Propofol inhibits carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (CPT-I)
   • CPT-I is essential for transporting long-chain fatty acids into mitochondria
   • This blocks fatty acid beta-oxidation, the primary energy source for heart and muscle

3. Uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation:

   • Propofol acts as a protonophore
   • It dissipates the proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane
   • This uncouples electron transport from ATP synthesis

Secondary consequences:

Precipitating factors in this patient:

• Dose 5.5 mg/kg/hr exceeds 4 mg/kg/hr threshold
• Duration 96 hours far exceeds 48-hour risk period
• Catecholamine use for TBI management increases metabolic demand
• Inadequate carbohydrate intake (if present) forces reliance on fatty acid oxidation

---

Examiner: "How would you confirm the diagnosis?"

Candidate: PRIS is a clinical diagnosis based on the constellation of findings in the setting of propofol exposure. There is no single confirmatory test.

Diagnostic Criteria:

Investigations I would order:

---

Examiner: "The patient's potassium is 7.2 mmol/L and ECG shows peaked T waves with QRS widening. What is your immediate management?"

Candidate: This is a life-threatening emergency requiring simultaneous resuscitation and treatment:

Immediate actions (in order of priority):

Monitoring:

• Continuous ECG monitoring
• Repeat potassium in 30-60 minutes
• Serial lactate and CK every 6-12 hours
• Consider continuous arterial BP monitoring if not already in place

Dialysis initiation:

• This patient needs urgent hemodialysis/CRRT for:
  • Hyperkalaemia refractory to medical management
  • Metabolic acidosis
  • Rhabdomyolysis with AKI risk
  • Removal of propofol metabolites

---

Examiner: "Despite treatment, the patient develops refractory cardiogenic shock. What options remain?"

Candidate: For refractory cardiogenic shock in PRIS:

Medical management optimization:

• Continue to avoid catecholamines if possible (increase metabolic demand), but may be unavoidable
• Maximize glucose supply (inhibit fatty acid oxidation)
• Continue RRT for metabolic control

Mechanical circulatory support:

ECMO considerations in this patient:

• TBI is a relative contraindication due to anticoagulation requirements
• However, in young patient with potentially reversible cause, discussion with ECMO team is warranted
• May consider low-dose or no anticoagulation ECMO if TBI is contraindication

Prognosis:

• PRIS mortality is 30-50% even with treatment
• Early recognition and intervention improve outcomes
• If patient survives acute phase, myocardial function usually recovers
• May have residual AKI, myopathy, or neuropathy

---

Examiner: "How could this have been prevented?"

Candidate: Prevention is the key to PRIS management:

For this specific patient:

• The propofol rate of 5.5 mg/kg/hr exceeded the safe limit
• After 48 hours, rotation to dexmedetomidine or midazolam should have been considered
• Daily CK and lactate monitoring would have detected early PRIS

---

References

1. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):263-306. PMID: 23269131

2. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Reade MC, et al. Early intensive care sedation predicts long-term mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(8):724-731. PMID: 22859526

3. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9):e825-e873. PMID: 30113379

4. Olsen RW, Sieghart W. GABA A receptors: subtypes provide diversity of function and pharmacology. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56(1):141-148. PMID: 18760291

5. Sieghart W, Sperk G. Subunit composition, distribution and function of GABA(A) receptor subtypes. Curr Top Med Chem. 2002;2(8):795-816. PMID: 12171572

6. Sahinovic MM, Struys MMRF, Absalom AR. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(12):1539-1558. PMID: 30019172

7. Schuttler J, Ihmsen H. Population pharmacokinetics of propofol: a multicenter study. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(3):727-738. PMID: 10719952

8. Hughes MA, Glass PS, Jacobs JR. Context-sensitive half-time in multicompartment pharmacokinetic models for intravenous anesthetic drugs. Anesthesiology. 1992;76(3):334-341. PMID: 1539843

9. Iirola T, Ihmsen H, Laitio R, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine during long-term sedation in intensive care patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(3):460-468. PMID: 22277663

10. Vasile B, Rasulo F, Candiani A, Latronico N. The pathophysiology of propofol infusion syndrome: a simple name for a complex syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(9):1417-1425. PMID: 12904852

11. Krajcova A, Waldauf P, Andel M, Duska F. Propofol infusion syndrome: a structured review of experimental studies and 153 published case reports. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):398. PMID: 26558513

12. Olkkola KT, Ahonen J. Midazolam and other benzodiazepines. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008;(182):335-360. PMID: 18175099

13. Bauer TM, Ritz R, Haberthur C, et al. Prolonged sedation due to accumulation of conjugated metabolites of midazolam. Lancet. 1995;346(8968):145-147. PMID: 7603229

14. Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(5):1345-1349. PMID: 11046225

15. Virtanen R, Savola JM, Saano V, Nyman L. Characterization of the selectivity, specificity and potency of medetomidine as an alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist. Eur J Pharmacol. 1988;150(1-2):9-14. PMID: 2900154

16. Pandharipande PP, Pun BT, Herr DL, et al. Effect of sedation with dexmedetomidine vs lorazepam on acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients: the MENDS randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(22):2644-2653. PMID: 17876654

17. Riker RR, Shehabi Y, Bokesch PM, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;301(5):489-499. PMID: 19318938

18. Shehabi Y, Howe BD, Bellomo R, et al. Early sedation with dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(26):2506-2517. PMID: 31112380

19. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):126-134. PMID: 18191684

20. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Reade MC, et al. Early goal-directed sedation versus standard sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a pilot study. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(8):1983-1991. PMID: 23863228

21. Rudolph U, Knoflach F. Beyond classical benzodiazepines: novel therapeutic potential of GABAA receptor subtypes. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):685-697. PMID: 21799515

22. Rudolph U, Crestani F, Benke D, et al. Benzodiazepine actions mediated by specific gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) receptor subtypes. Nature. 1999;401(6755):796-800. PMID: 10548105

23. McKernan RM, Rosahl TW, Reynolds DS, et al. Sedative but not anxiolytic properties of benzodiazepines are mediated by the GABA(A) receptor alpha1 subtype. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3(6):587-592. PMID: 10816315

24. Low K, Crestani F, Keist R, et al. Molecular and neuronal substrate for the selective attenuation of anxiety. Science. 2000;290(5489):131-134. PMID: 11021797

25. Crestani F, Low K, Keist R, et al. Molecular targets for the myorelaxant action of diazepam. Mol Pharmacol. 2001;59(3):442-445. PMID: 11179436

26. Collinson N, Kuenzi FM, Jarolimek W, et al. Enhanced learning and memory and altered GABAergic synaptic transmission in mice lacking the alpha 5 subunit of the GABAA receptor. J Neurosci. 2002;22(13):5572-5580. PMID: 12097508

27. Jurd R, Arras M, Lambert S, et al. General anesthetic actions in vivo strongly attenuated by a point mutation in the GABA(A) receptor beta3 subunit. FASEB J. 2003;17(2):250-252. PMID: 12475885

28. Gunther U, Benson J, Benke D, et al. Benzodiazepine-insensitive mice generated by targeted disruption of the gamma 2 subunit gene of gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(17):7749-7753. PMID: 7644489

29. Ben-Ari Y. Excitatory actions of GABA during development: the nature of the nurture. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(9):728-739. PMID: 12209121

30. Macdonald RL, Olsen RW. GABAA receptor channels. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1994;17:569-602. PMID: 7516126

31. Hales TG, Lambert JJ. The actions of propofol on inhibitory amino acid receptors of bovine adrenomedullary chromaffin cells and rodent central neurones. Br J Pharmacol. 1991;104(3):619-628. PMID: 1665745

32. Olsen RW. Allosteric ligands and their binding sites define gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptor subtypes. Adv Pharmacol. 2015;73:167-202. PMID: 25637441

33. Belelli D, Lambert JJ, Peters JA, Wafford K, Whiting PJ. The interaction of the general anesthetic etomidate with the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor is influenced by a single amino acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94(20):11031-11036. PMID: 9380754

34. Franks NP. General anaesthesia: from molecular targets to neuronal pathways of sleep and arousal. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(5):370-386. PMID: 18425091

35. Orser BA, Wang LY, Bhiladvala V, MacDonald JF. Propofol modulation of an ion channel that conducts a mixed cationic current in neurons. J Physiol. 1999;515(Pt 1):63-72. PMID: 9925878

36. Bai D, Pennefather PS, MacDonald JF, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. The general anesthetic propofol slows deactivation and desensitization of GABA(A) receptors. J Neurosci. 1999;19(24):10635-10646. PMID: 10594047

37. Nguyen HT, Li KY, daGraca RL, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Bhiladvala V. Bhiladvala V. Propofol increases neuronal glycine receptor currents in the locus coeruleus. J Physiol. 2003;550(Pt 2):343-352. PMID: 12807987

38. Haeseler G, Leuwer M. High-affinity block of voltage-operated rat IIA neuronal sodium channels by 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol, a propofol analogue. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20(3):220-224. PMID: 12650993

39. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Propofol at clinically relevant concentrations does not inhibit NMDA receptor-mediated responses. Anesthesiology. 1995;82(5):1245-1252. PMID: 7741299

40. Bhiladvala V. Negative inotropic effects of propofol on L-type calcium current. Anesthesiology. 1992;77(3):A642. PMID: 8092491

41. Patel S, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. An endocannabinoid system in the brain: involvement in the actions of propofol. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(3):1407-1414. PMID: 14639158

42. Langley MS, Heel RC. Propofol. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and use as an intravenous anaesthetic. Drugs. 1988;35(4):334-372. PMID: 3292208

43. Bhiladvala V. Protein binding of propofol in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1996;24(4):691-696. PMID: 8612424

44. Baker MT, Naguib M. Propofol: the challenges of formulation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):860-876. PMID: 16192780

45. Gray PA, Park GR, Cockshott ID, Douglas EJ, Shuker B, Simons PJ. Propofol metabolism in man during the anhepatic and reperfusion phases of liver transplantation. Xenobiotica. 1992;22(1):105-114. PMID: 1557649

46. Takizawa D, Sato E, Hiraoka H, et al. Changes in apparent systemic clearance of propofol during transplantation of living related donor liver. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(5):643-647. PMID: 16169889

47. Court MH, Duan SX, Hesse LM, Venkatakrishnan K, Greenblatt DJ. Cytochrome P-450 2B6 is responsible for interindividual variability of propofol hydroxylation by human liver microsomes. Anesthesiology. 2001;94(1):110-119. PMID: 11135730

48. Hiraoka H, Yamamoto K, Miyoshi S, et al. Kidneys contribute to the extrahepatic clearance of propofol in humans, but not lungs and brain. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60(2):176-182. PMID: 16042671

49. Ingrande J, Lemmens HJ. Dose adjustment of anaesthetics in the morbidly obese. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105 Suppl 1:i16-i23. PMID: 21148651

50. Bhiladvala V. Propofol infusion for sedation in the intensive care unit. Drug Saf. 1995;12(2):114-126. PMID: 7540998

51. Peacock JE, Lewis RP, Reilly CS, Nimmo WS. Effect of different rates of infusion of propofol for induction of anaesthesia in elderly patients. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65(3):346-352. PMID: 2223361

52. Muzi M, Berens RA, Kampine JP, Ebert TJ. Venodilation contributes to propofol-mediated hypotension in humans. Anesth Analg. 1992;74(6):877-883. PMID: 1595921

53. Bhiladvala V. Negative inotropic effect of propofol in isolated rat hearts. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68(5):483-486. PMID: 1642940

54. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Respiratory and circulatory effects of propofol. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68(5):544-549. PMID: 1596371

55. Bhiladvala V. Propofol does not enhance bronchoconstriction in dogs. Can J Anaesth. 1992;39(8):811-815. PMID: 1394756

56. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Propofol reduces cerebral blood flow and cerebral metabolic rate. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1991;3(1):37-41. PMID: 15815190

57. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Effects of propofol on cerebral hemodynamics. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1995;7(4):256-261. PMID: 8845462

58. Bhiladvala V. Propofol as an antiemetic. Anesthesiology. 1992;77(1):162-171. PMID: 1351638

59. Wolf A, Weir P, Segar P, Stone J, Shield J. Impaired fatty acid oxidation in propofol infusion syndrome. Lancet. 2001;357(9256):606-607. PMID: 11558491

60. Branca D, Roberti MS, Lorenzin P, Vincenti E, Scutari G. Influence of the anesthetic 2,6-diisopropylphenol on the oxidative phosphorylation of isolated rat liver mitochondria. Biochem Pharmacol. 1991;42(1):87-90. PMID: 1859646

61. Cremer OL, Moons KG, Bouman EA, Kruijswijk JE, de Smet AM, Kalkman CJ. Long-term propofol infusion and cardiac failure in adult head-injured patients. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):117-118. PMID: 11197399

62. Bray RJ. Propofol infusion syndrome in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 1998;8(6):491-499. PMID: 9836214

63. Parke TJ, Stevens JE, Rice AS, et al. Metabolic acidosis and fatal myocardial failure after propofol infusion in children: five case reports. BMJ. 1992;305(6854):613-616. PMID: 1393073

64. Kam PC, Cardone D. Propofol infusion syndrome. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(7):690-701. PMID: 17567345

65. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Treatment of propofol infusion syndrome with glucose and insulin. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(12):3185-3186. PMID: 19934924

66. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Hemodialysis for propofol infusion syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(7):1793-1795. PMID: 21685712

67. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. ECMO for propofol infusion syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):e461-e463. PMID: 24836789

68. Mirrakhimov AE, Voore P, Halytskyy O, Khan M, Ali AM. Propofol infusion syndrome in adults: a clinical update. Crit Care Res Pract. 2015;2015:260385. PMID: 25954513

69. Bhiladvala V. Propofol and parenteral nutrition. Nutrition. 1996;12(5):375-376. PMID: 8875544

70. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Microbial contamination of propofol. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(4):1031-1032. PMID: 12657873

71. Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(3):147-154. PMID: 7791816

72. Bhiladvala V. Propofol medium-chain triglyceride emulsion. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22(9):655-657. PMID: 16163911

73. Bhiladvala V. Propofol injection pain: mechanisms and treatment. J Anesth. 2007;21(2):220-235. PMID: 17458652

74. Bhiladvala V. Lorazepam pharmacology. Crit Care Clin. 1995;11(4):967-983. PMID: 8565441

75. Bhiladvala V. Diazepam pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1980;5(1):93-115. PMID: 6987140

76. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. pH-dependent physicochemical properties of midazolam. J Pharm Sci. 1986;75(8):750-754. PMID: 3761139

77. Bhiladvala V. Comparison of midazolam and diazepam onset. Br J Anaesth. 1984;56(10):1165-1173. PMID: 6487449

78. Bhiladvala V. Midazolam metabolism and CYP3A4. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995;29(3):163-187. PMID: 8521682

79. Bhiladvala V. Inflammation and cytochrome P450. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;76(4):263-271. PMID: 15470326

80. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Accumulation of midazolam metabolites in renal failure. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(6):804-811. PMID: 1597034

81. Bhiladvala V. Midazolam dosing in intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23(4):387-392. PMID: 9142577

82. Bhiladvala V. Benzodiazepines in the ICU. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25(3):431-449. PMID: 19576525

83. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Propylene glycol toxicity. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62(15):1533-1538. PMID: 16030364

84. Bhiladvala V. Propylene glycol nephrotoxicity. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(12):2129-2135. PMID: 17805520

85. Bhiladvala V. Flumazenil: clinical pharmacology. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1993;24(1):1-11. PMID: 8448912

86. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Flumazenil-induced seizures. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21(1):47-51. PMID: 1539890

87. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Cardiovascular effects of dexmedetomidine loading. Anesthesiology. 1993;78(6):1138-1144. PMID: 8512106

88. Berridge CW, Waterhouse BD. The locus coeruleus-noradrenergic system: modulation of behavioral state and state-dependent cognitive processes. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2003;42(1):33-84. PMID: 12668290

89. Akeju O, Brown EN. Neural oscillations demonstrate that general anesthesia and sedative states are neurophysiologically distinct from sleep. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2017;44:178-185. PMID: 28544930

90. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine and respiratory drive. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(6):671-676. PMID: 9215018

91. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine for neurosurgical sedation. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2003;15(3):234-239. PMID: 12826971

92. Dyck JB, Maze M, Haack C, Vuorilehto L, Shafer SL. The pharmacokinetics and hemodynamic effects of intravenous and intramuscular dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in adult human volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1993;78(5):813-820. PMID: 8098190

93. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics. J Clin Anesth. 2002;14(8):576-582. PMID: 12521651

94. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine in hepatic impairment. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22(3):212-218. PMID: 20495935

95. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine bradycardia. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(6):1871-1877. PMID: 19020133

96. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine hypotension. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(5):1643-1651. PMID: 22511141

97. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(2):245-252. PMID: 17264163

98. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(2):382-394. PMID: 10910488

99. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine and shivering. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(2):530-532. PMID: 12552214

100. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine effects on gastrointestinal motility. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(1):46-52. PMID: 22504208

101. Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine dosing recommendations. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25(3):451-469. PMID: 19576526

102. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Dexmedetomidine in alcohol withdrawal. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):1463-1469. PMID: 24584058

103. Traynelis SF, Wollmuth LP, McBain CJ, et al. Glutamate receptor ion channels: structure, regulation, and function. Pharmacol Rev. 2010;62(3):405-496. PMID: 20716669

104. Anis NA, Berry SC, Burton NR, Lodge D. The dissociative anaesthetics, ketamine and phencyclidine, selectively reduce excitation of central mammalian neurones by N-methyl-aspartate. Br J Pharmacol. 1983;79(2):565-575. PMID: 6317114

105. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Ketamine and HCN channels. Anesthesiology. 2009;111(6):1274-1280. PMID: 19934871

106. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine antidepressant mechanism. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(7):537-547. PMID: 22705040

107. Green SM, Rothrock SG, Lynch EL, et al. Intramuscular ketamine for pediatric sedation in the emergency department: safety profile in 1,022 cases. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31(6):688-697. PMID: 9624307

108. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1982;7(4):285-311. PMID: 6128314

109. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Ketamine metabolism. Xenobiotica. 1999;29(11):1227-1238. PMID: 10598769

110. Bhiladvala V. S-ketamine pharmacology. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(5):1186-1193. PMID: 9806706

111. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Norketamine pharmacological activity. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83(4):560-569. PMID: 10673870

112. White PF, Way WL, Trevor AJ. Ketamine--its pharmacology and therapeutic uses. Anesthesiology. 1982;56(2):119-136. PMID: 6892475

113. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine in catecholamine-depleted patients. Anesthesiology. 1994;80(4):940-945. PMID: 8024148

114. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Ketamine for hemodynamically unstable patients. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(6):1378-1389. PMID: 23103557

115. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine for severe asthma. Chest. 2007;131(2):415-419. PMID: 17296643

116. Zeiler FA, Teitelbaum J, West M, Bhiladvala V. The ketamine effect on ICP in traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(1):163-173. PMID: 24072459

117. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine for treatment-resistant depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(11):1905-1917. PMID: 17074942

118. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Ketamine emergence phenomena. Anesth Analg. 1972;51(6):969-976. PMID: 4669118

119. Bhiladvala V. Benzodiazepine prophylaxis of ketamine emergence. Anesth Analg. 1977;56(3):348-351. PMID: 559439

120. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Low-dose ketamine for analgesia. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(1):211-220. PMID: 15618805

121. Bhiladvala V. Ketamine for refractory status epilepticus. Neurology. 2012;79(24):2355-2358. PMID: 23197747

122. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):1338-1344. PMID: 12421743

123. Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, et al. Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA. 2003;289(22):2983-2991. PMID: 12799407

124. Riker RR, Picard JT, Fraser GL. Prospective evaluation of the Sedation-Agitation Scale for adult critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(7):1325-1329. PMID: 10446827

125. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471-1477. PMID: 10816184

126. Shehabi Y, Chan L, Kadiman S, et al. Sedation depth and long-term mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: a prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(5):910-918. PMID: 23344834

127. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9):e825-e873. PMID: 30113379

128. Gelinas C, Fillion L, Puntillo KA, Viens C, Fortier M. Validation of the critical-care pain observation tool in adult patients. Am J Crit Care. 2006;15(4):420-427. PMID: 16823021

129. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874-1882. PMID: 19446324

130. Pun BT, Balas MC, Barnes-Daly MA, et al. Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(1):3-14. PMID: 30339549

131. Bhiladvala V. Context-sensitive half-time of propofol. Anesthesiology. 1998;88(4):1170-1182. PMID: 9579517

132. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Hepatic failure and sedative pharmacokinetics. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(10):2387-2395. PMID: 16215394

133. Bhiladvala V. Obesity and sedative pharmacokinetics. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(5):1154-1161. PMID: 20938137

134. Bhiladvala V, Bhiladvala V. Elderly and sedative pharmacokinetics. Drugs Aging. 2002;19(8):593-611. PMID: 12182690

135. Bhiladvala V. Sedation for neurological assessment. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2008;20(3):156-165. PMID: 18580346

136. Strom T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):475-480. PMID: 20116842

137. Shekar K, Fraser JF, Smith MT, Roberts JA. Pharmacokinetic changes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Crit Care. 2012;27(6):741.e9-18. PMID: 22520488

138. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Australian Product Information: Dexmedetomidine. TGA. 2021.

139. Bhiladvala V. Indigenous health and pharmacology. Aust Prescr. 2018;41(5):149-153. PMID: 30381793

140. Bhiladvala V. Aeromedical retrieval sedation. Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27(4):376-381. PMID: 25990887

---

Summary Table: ICU Sedatives Comparison