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

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

Inclusion Criteria: * 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 Exclusion Criteria: * Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation * Severe traumatic brain injury * Transfer to another hospital unit * Less than 24 hours of mechanical ventilation