Clinical outcomes after a single induction dose of etomidate versus ketamine for emergency department sepsis intubation: a randomized controlled trial

被引:13
|
作者
Srivilaithon, Winchana [1 ]
Bumrungphanithaworn, Atidtaya [1 ]
Daorattanachai, Kiattichai [1 ]
Limjindaporn, Chitlada [1 ]
Amnuaypattanapon, Kumpol [1 ]
Imsuwan, Intanon [1 ]
Diskumpon, Nipon [1 ]
Dasanadeba, Ittabud [1 ]
Siripakarn, Yaowapha [1 ]
Ueamsaranworakul, Thosapol [1 ]
Pornpanit, Chatchanan [1 ]
Pornpachara, Vanussarin [2 ]
机构
[1] Thammasat Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Fac Med, 99-209 Phahon Yothin Rd, Bangkok 12120, Pathum Thani, Thailand
[2] Rajavithi Hosp, Div Endocrinol, Dept Med, Bangkok, Thailand
关键词
RESPIRATORY-DISTRESS-SYNDROME; RAPID-SEQUENCE INTUBATION; ILL PATIENTS; MANAGEMENT; INSUFFICIENCY; GUIDELINES; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-023-33679-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Patients with sepsis often require emergency intubation. In emergency departments (EDs), rapid-sequence intubation with a single-dose induction agent is standard practice, but the best choice of induction agent in sepsis remains controversial. We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial in the ED. We included septic patients who were aged at least 18 years and required sedation for emergency intubation. Patients were randomly assigned by a blocked randomization to receive 0.2-0.3 mg/kg of etomidate or 1-2 mg/kg of ketamine for intubation. The objectives were to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events after intubation between etomidate and ketamine. Two hundred and sixty septic patients were enrolled; 130 patients/drug arm whose baseline characteristics were well balanced at baseline. In the etomidate group, 105 patients (80.8%) were alive at 28 days, compared with 95 patients (73.1%) in the ketamine group (risk difference [RD], 7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 2.5 to 17.9%; P=0.092). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived at 24 h (91.5% vs. 96.2%; P=0.097) and survived at 7 days (87.7% vs. 87.7%; P=0.574). A significantly higher proportion of the etomidate group needed a vasopressor within 24 h after intubation: 43.9% vs. 17.7%, RD, 26.2% (95% CI, 15.4 to 36.9%; P<0.001). In conclusion, there were no differences in early and late survival rates between etomidate and ketamine. However, etomidate was associated with higher risks of early vasopressor use after intubation.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical outcomes after a single induction dose of etomidate versus ketamine for emergency department sepsis intubation: a randomized controlled trial
    Winchana Srivilaithon
    Atidtaya Bumrungphanithaworn
    Kiattichai Daorattanachai
    Chitlada Limjindaporn
    Kumpol Amnuaypattanapon
    Intanon Imsuwan
    Nipon Diskumpon
    Ittabud Dasanadeba
    Yaowapha Siripakarn
    Thosapol Ueamsaranworakul
    Chatchanan Pornpanit
    Vanussarin Pornpachara
    Scientific Reports, 13
  • [2] Etomidate versus ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial
    Matchett, Gerald
    Gasanova, Irina
    Riccio, Christina A.
    Nasir, Dawood
    Sunna, Mary C.
    Bravenec, Brian J.
    Azizad, Omaira
    Farrell, Brian
    Minhajuddin, Abu
    Stewart, Jesse W.
    Liang, Lawrence W.
    Moon, Tiffany Sun
    Fox, Pamela E.
    Ebeling, Callie G.
    Smith, Miakka N.
    Trousdale, Devin
    Ogunnaike, Babatunde O.
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2022, 48 (01) : 78 - 91
  • [3] Etomidate versus ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial
    Gerald Matchett
    Irina Gasanova
    Christina A. Riccio
    Dawood Nasir
    Mary C. Sunna
    Brian J. Bravenec
    Omaira Azizad
    Brian Farrell
    Abu Minhajuddin
    Jesse W. Stewart
    Lawrence W. Liang
    Tiffany Sun Moon
    Pamela E. Fox
    Callie G. Ebeling
    Miakka N. Smith
    Devin Trousdale
    Babatunde O. Ogunnaike
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2022, 48 : 78 - 91
  • [4] EFFECT OF ETOMIDATE VERSUS KETAMINE ON INTUBATION SUCCESS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
    McKinney, Courtney
    Patanwala, Asad
    Sakles, John
    Erstad, Brian
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2012, 40 (12) : U34 - U34
  • [5] Randomized clinical trial of etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department
    Miner, James R.
    Danahy, Mark
    Moch, Abby
    Biros, Michelle
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2007, 49 (01) : 15 - 22
  • [6] Intravenous Subdissociative-Dose Ketamine Versus Morphine for Analgesia in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Motov, Sergey
    Rockoff, Bradley
    Cohen, Victor
    Pushkar, Illya
    Likourezos, Antonios
    McKay, Courtney
    Soleyman-Zomalan, Emil
    Home, Peter
    Terentiev, Victoria
    Fromm, Christian
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2015, 66 (03) : 222 - 229
  • [7] Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
    P Jabre
    X Combes
    A Ricard-Hibon
    P Mirat
    JF Cibien
    C Bourzeix
    M Dahouadi
    F Adnet
    Critical Care, 13 (Suppl 1):
  • [8] Changes in hemodynamic parameters with the use of etomidate versus ketamine induction in the emergency department
    Bakhsh, Abdullah
    Alnashri, Maryam
    Alawami, Fatimah
    Aseel, Rafal
    Almaghthawi, Maha
    Alrahaili, Ghaida
    Bifari, Anas
    Algethami, Hassan
    SIGNA VITAE, 2021, 17 (02) : 85 - 92
  • [9] Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol Versus Ketamine for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department
    Miner, James R.
    Gray, Richard O.
    Bahr, Jennifer
    Patel, Roma
    McGill, John W.
    ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2010, 17 (06) : 604 - 611
  • [10] Intravenous subdissociative-dose ketamine versus morphine for acute geriatric pain in the Emergency Department: A randomized controlled trial
    Motov, Sergey
    Mann, Stefan
    Drapkin, Jefferson
    Butt, Mahlaqa
    Likourezos, Antonios
    Yetter, Elizabeth
    Brady, Jason
    Rothberger, Nechama
    Gohel, Ankit
    Flom, Peter
    Mai, Mo
    Fromm, Christian
    Marshall, John
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 37 (02): : 220 - 227