Exploration of xenon as a potential cardiostable sedative: a comparison with propofol after cardiac surgery

Xenon anaesthesia is thought to have minimal haemodynamic side-effects. It is, however, expensive and requires special delivery systems for economic u se. In this randomised cross-over study, we: (i) investigated the haemodyna mic profile and recovery characteristics of xenon compared with propofol se dation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients, and (ii) evaluated a full y closed breathing system to minimise xenon consumption. We demonstrated a significantly faster recovery from xenon (3 min 11 s) than propofol sedatio n (25 min 23 s). Relative to propofol, xenon sedation produced no change in heart rate or mean arterial pressure and there were significantly higher m ean values for central venous pressure (10.6 vs. 8.9 minHg), pulmonary arte ry occlusion pressure (11.2 vs. 9.5 mmHg), mean pulmonary artery pressure ( 20.1 vs. 18.3 mmHg) and systemic vascular resistance index (2170 vs. 1896 d yn.s.cm (-5).m(-2)). The haemodynamic profile seen with propofol reflected its known vasodilator effects. This was supported by the almost identical l eft ventricular stroke work indexes seen with both methods of sedation.