Cost-Effectiveness of Inhaled Sedation Versus Intravenous Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorHospital H+ Queretaro

About this trial

The goal of this observational study is to learn whether inhaled sedation is a cost-effective alternative to intravenous propofol in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. The main questions it aims to answer are:

* Does inhaled sedation reduce the total cost of care compared with intravenous propofol? * Does inhaled sedation reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay? * Are adverse events different between patients receiving inhaled sedation and those receiving intravenous propofol?

Researchers will compare patients who received inhaled sedation with patients who received intravenous propofol to see if inhaled sedation improves clinical outcomes and reduces overall costs.

Participants will:

* Be identified through review of electronic medical records * Be included if they are adults who received mechanical ventilation and were sedated with inhaled sedation or intravenous propofol * Contribute data on total costs of care, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse event

Eligibility criteria

Qualifiers

Adults aged 18 years or older

Admission to the intensive care unit at Hospital H+ Querétaro

Invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours

Receipt of inhaled sedation or continuous intravenous propofol sedation during ICU stay

Disqualifiers

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Severe traumatic brain injury

Transfer to another hospital unit

Less than 24 hours of mechanical ventilation

Trial design

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Isoflurane
  • Propofol (Astra-Zeneca)

Treatment groups

400 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups

Locations

This trial has no locations

Sponsors and collaborators