Can inhaled sedation save money and improve outcomes for ventilated ICU patients?

NCT ID NCT07734350

Not yet recruiting Knowledge-focused Sponsor: Hospital H+ Queretaro Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jul 29, 2026 · Last updated Jul 30, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

This observational study looks at whether inhaled sedation with isoflurane is a more cost-effective option than intravenous propofol for mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit. Researchers will compare total care costs, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and side effects between the two sedation methods using electronic medical records. The study includes 400 adults who were on a ventilator for at least 24 hours and received one of the two sedation approaches.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: inhaled isoflurane sedation versus intravenous propofol
What this could lead to: If inhaled sedation proves more cost-effective, it could become a preferred option for sedating critically ill patients on ventilators, potentially reducing healthcare costs.
What could go wrong: This is a retrospective observational study, so it cannot prove cause and effect. Differences in patient groups or care practices may influence results.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for CRITICAL ILLNESS are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

Critical Illness respiratory failure

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

CRITICAL ILLNESS MECHANICAL VENTILATION RESPIRATORY INSUFFICIENCY

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.