Sedation challenges in patients with E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI)
- Matthew Antone Maslonka 1,
- Adam Ross Schertz 1,
- Lauren Michelle Markowski 2 and
- Peter John Miller 1 , 3 , 4
- 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunological Diseases, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- 3 Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology and Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Section on Critical Care Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- Correspondence to Dr Peter John Miller; pemiller@wakehealth.edu
Abstract
E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) has become an epidemic that is increasingly affecting patients across USA. Recently, over 2100 cases have been reported in 49 states, resulting in at least 42 deaths. We present a case of rapid respiratory failure in an otherwise healthy and young patient who used a vaporiser containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) during the month prior to admission. The patient eventually required mechanical ventilation. There were significant challenges in achieving the appropriate level of sedation during intubation and mechanical ventilation. As more EVALI cases are being diagnosed in recent months, we highlight an aspect that may be unique to the population of patients who vaporise THC—high sedative and analgesic requirements during intubation and mechanical ventilation.
Background
E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) has become a recent epidemic affecting patients across USA. There is an increasing concern given that it disproportionately affects young and otherwise healthy patients. Recently, over 2100 cases have been reported in 49 states that have resulted in at least 42 deaths.1 2 Health agencies have released warnings on the use of E-cigarettes, especially those containing the psychoactive ingredient THC.1–7 Studies have analysed the physiological effects on cannabis users in regard to cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and respiratory associations.8 9 Patients using these products, whether for medical or non-medical reasons, may be at increased risk of adverse events. We present a case of THC-related EVALI in a young, healthy patient who rapidly progressed to acute respiratory failure with a focus on the challenges encountered regarding sedation and analgesia during mechanical ventilation.
Case presentation
A 23-year-old woman with no reported medical history or prescription medication use presented with myalgias, subjective fevers, dyspnoea, cough and intermittent confusion for 6 days. On examination, the patient was well-nourished, uncomfortable appearing, tachypneic but able to speak in full sentences. Other than tachypnea, pulmonary auscultation was without abnormalities. Body mass index noted 25.87 (70.83 kg). Physical examination was otherwise unremarkable.
On admission to the general medical ward, a workup revealed mild leucocytosis with normal urinalysis. The patient had a fever with Tmax was 101.7°F and remained tachycardic despite appropriate intravenous fluids. Chest X-ray was unremarkable (figure 1). CT angiography revealed non-specific bilateral subpleural ground-glass opacities concerning for atypical infection versus acute pneumonitis (figures 2 and 3). A thorough social history revealed no alcohol or prescription drug abuse. The patient did endorse extensive vaping, up to several times an hour, using a combination of Juul nicotine cartridges, prefilled cartridges obtained both online and from a friend known to contain an unknown concentration of THC, as well as ‘Dank Vapes’ in the month leading up to admission. A urine drug screen was consistent for THC in the patient’s system.
Chest X-ray on admission non-specific peripheral infiltrates without effusions or hilar abnormalities.

Coronal CT thorax with contrast patchy subpleural ground-glass opacities with sparing of majority of central parenchyma. No effusions noted.

Axial CT thorax with contrast bilateral lower lobe ground-glass opacities in a posterior distribution. No honeycombing or bronchiectasis noted.

On the third day of admission, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) for worsening hypoxia. She was in apparent respiratory distress, tachypneic to a rate of 42/min and only able to speak in two to three word sentences. Pulmonary auscultation revealed diffuse rhonchi with bibasilar crackles. The remainder of her haemodynamics were as follows: BP: 137/56; mean arterial pressure: 83 mm Hg; temperature 101.8°F (38.8°C); volume status: euvolemic. Immediately on transfer to the ICU, the patient developed worsening respiratory distress with intermittent hypoxia and SpO2 measurements to 50%–60% via pulse oximetry while on 100% high flow nasal cannula (Optiflow at 60 L/min). Each episode of hypoxia resolved, with the return of SpO2 into the 90 s. The patient was prepared for immediate intubation with procedural consent for intubation able to be obtained from both patient and her mother. The patient and her mother reported no prior intubations or a known history of first degree relatives with reactions to anaesthesia. Given the emergent nature to proceed with intubation, a blood gas was not obtained prior to intubation.
The medical team prepared for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) with standard dosing of propofol 1.5 mg/kg and rocuronium 1 mg/kg. Patient was preoxygenated via high flow nasal cannula (Optiflow) 60 L/min at 100% FiO2 and a time-out completed. RSI was administered while patient maintained oxygenation via high flow nasal cannula during the procedure. After 45 s, patient was noted to have respiratory effort and a clenched jaw, however, no other muscle rigidity noted. An additional 0.5 mg/kg propofol was administered with notable relaxation of her jaw and; patient was no longer initiating her own breaths and a prompt desaturation to 50% measured via pulse oximetry was noted. She was successfully and quickly intubated with the return of oxygen saturation to >95%. No muscle rigidity was noted postintubation and patient remained afebrile with continuous temperature monitoring.
Differential diagnosis
Given the patient’s presentation, imaging findings and acute progressive decompensation, a broadened differential including infectious, auto-immune and toxin-mediated lung injuries were considered. Bronchoscopy was conducted with transbronchial biopsies of the left lower lobe revealing diffuse alveolar damage consistent with a toxin-induced lung injury (figure 4A–C) and together with her CT findings, a potential diagnosis of EVALI.7 10 Infectious workup remained negative, and bronchial alveolar lavage (BAL) were unremarkable.
(A–C) Pathology slides from transbronchial biopsies. A: 100×; B: 200×; C: 400× features show severe acute lung injury consistent with diffuse alveolar damage. The interstitium is mildly expanded by oedema and there are a moderate number of eosinophilic hyaline membranes in alveolar spaces constituting diffuse alveolar damage. There are no eosinophils, evidence of haemorrhage, granulomas or giant cells. Grocott’s methenamine silver (GMS) stains did exclude the possibility of pneumocystis or fungal infection. Additional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stains did not reveal any additional features.

Treatment
Initially, to cover for the potential etiologies that could create the specific CT findings, broad-spectrum antibiotics for respiratory pathogens were initiated. After her BAL findings, antibiotics were discontinued and she was initiated on intravenous methylprednisolone for 3 days given high suspicion for EVALI.3 7 10 Appropriate sedation and anxiolysis monitored by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) goal of 0 was very difficult; the patient required continuous infusions of fentanyl, propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam.
Outcome and follow-up
After 4 days the patient was extubated, steroids were discontinued, and she was ultimately discharged on 2 L/min supplemental oxygen for residual hypoxia. The patient returned 1 week later with dyspnoea and chest discomfort. Imaging revealed pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum with a left-sided apical bullous lesion and subcutaneous emphysema in the background of pan-lobar fibrosis, likely related to her previous inflammatory lung insult (figure 5). She only required supportive measures with nasal cannula oxygen and pain management until discharge. Follow-up in pulmonary clinic revealed no recurrent events after cessation from vaping.
Chest X-ray on two different admissions (A) First admission (2 days into admission): patchy bilateral subpleural ground glass opacities. (B) Second admission (7 days post discharge): diffuse subcutaneous emphysema with pneumomediastinum and large left apical blebbing in the background of diffuse fibrotic parenchymal lung changes.

Discussion
As more EVALI cases have been diagnosed across the country in recent months, we sought to share our experience to understand what potential lessons can be learnt from the management of these cases to guide clinical decision making going forward. One unanticipated aspect of these patients who may be unique to the population of THC users is the need for higher doses for sedatives/analgesia, and the requirement of additional agents. Although our patient did have documented fever at the time of intubation and potentially an increased rate of metabolism of anaesthetics, the doses required for sedation, both for RSI and postprocedure were far beyond authors’ typical experience. Emerging literature suggests increased requirements for sedative medications of multiple classes among heavy cannabis users, defined as at least weekly use of inhaled, vaporised or ingested cannabis.11 In particular, it appears in anaesthesia literature that propofol might have the highest required dose adjustment to achieve appropriate sedation.11 12 One small observational study reported statistically significant increased dose requirements of multiple classes of anaesthetic medications used for moderate sedation in heavy cannabis users, including opiates, benzodiazepines and propofol.11
The nature of cannabinoid cross-reactivity with anaesthetic agents is poorly defined. The major cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, concentrate in different areas and modulate distinct effects. CB1 receptors are found in high densities in the neuron terminals of the basal ganglia (motor activity), cerebellum (motor coordination), hippocampus (short‐term memory), neocortex (thinking) and hypothalamus/limbic cortex (appetite/sedation). CB2 receptors are primarily found on immune cells and tissues that when activated, can affect inflammatory and immunosuppressive activity.13 Animal models have inconsistently demonstrated cross-reactivity with cannabinoid and opioid receptors, particularly κ-opioid receptors.14–17 Both cannabinoid and opioid receptors act through G-protein-coupled receptors, activate Gi/Go guanosine-5′-triphosphate-binding proteins and modulate similar intracellular systems, including the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-protein kinase cascade, mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade and voltage-dependent potassium and calcium channels.15 18 A continuous exposure to either opioid or cannabinoid agonists was found to reduce the activation of G-proteins and the ability of agonists to inhibit cAMP production in several brain regions. Similarly, downregulation of opioid and cannabinoid receptors was evident in most studies examining long-term effects of opioid and cannabinoid agonists in the brain.18
The effects of propofol sedation in the presence of THC have been measured in mice models demonstrating the antagonistic effect of THC on propofol-induced sedation.19 The nature of this is poorly understood. However, this effect is possibly mediated by direct THC effect on γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptors. An indirect interaction between THC and propofol is also possible. The synaptic GABAA-nergic transmission of interneurons in the amygdala is partially modulated by presynaptic CB1 receptors. CB1 agonists inhibit GABAA receptor-mediated inhibitory postsynaptic currents, a negative feedback mechanism to presynaptic CB1 receptors changes the arousal state.19 20 Similar antagonism has been noted in barbiturates and can be extrapolated to benzodiazepines, which act similarly on GABAA receptors. Additionally, studies suggest that chronic marijuana use may downregulate both opioid and GABAA receptors.11 12 19 20
Until appropriate investigation into the pathophysiology of EVALI can be established, treatment consists of supportive care measures. The utility of steroids seems to be effective in some cases, dosing and duration remain largely speculative.1 3 As many of these patients required mechanical ventilation, adequate sedation is paramount in order to successfully establish an airway and to safely maintain appropriate oxygenation/ventilation.1–4 Patients who have exposure to high levels of cannabis may require a unique approach to the doses and agents needed to achieve the desired level of sedation. As the total number of THC-related EVALI cases are unknown, an awareness of the challenges of adequate analogue sedation in this population of patients is important.
Learning points
-
Prompt recognition of E-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury patients is critical and requires a thorough social history for THC vaping use on initial examination.
-
Mindful awareness of the rapid deterioration for these patients should be exercised by clinicians, and a level of care for frequent monitoring should be initiated.
-
Based on imaging findings there should be a low threshold for bronchoscopic evaluation to rule out alternative etiologies.
-
In patients with respiratory failure and a history of tetrahydrocannabinol use, the utilisation of higher than typical doses for rapid sequenceintubation medications and sedation while mechanically ventilated should be administered.
Acknowledgments
Ryan T Mott, MD provided pathological analysis and diagnostic assistance for our tissue sampling in the patient.
Footnotes
-
Twitter @Matt_Maslonka
-
Contributors MAM participated in contribution of the work by initiating the planning of the report, assisted in treating the patient, reporting of findings, conception and design for the report, acquisition and review of pertinent literature, and editing/formatting the final version of the case report. ARS participated in contribution of the work by assisting in treating the patient, reporting of findings, conception and design for the report, acquisition and review of pertinent literature, communication for consent, and editing/formatting the final version of the case report. LMM participated in contribution of the work by planning the report, acquisition and review of pertinent literature, and editing/formatting the final version of the case report. PJM participated in contribution of the work by planning the report, assisted in treating the patient, conception and design for the report, and editing/formatting the final version of the case report.
-
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
Patient consent for publication Parental/guardian consent obtained.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- © BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
References
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer