Abstract

Expanded AbstractCitationJabre P, Combes X, Lapostolle F, et al. Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 374:293-300. PMID: 19573904BackgroundCritically ill patients often require emergency intubation. The use of etomidate as the sedative agent in this context has been challenged because it may cause a reversible adrenal insufficiency, potentially associated with increased in-hospital morbidity. We compared early and 28-day morbidity after a single dose of etomidate or ketamine used for emergency endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients.MethodsIn this randomized, controlled, single-blind trial, 655 patients who needed sedation for emergency intubation were prospectively enrolled from 12 emergency medical services or emergency departments and 65 intensive care units in France. Patients were randomly assigned by a computerized random-number generator list to receive 0-3 mg/kg of etomidate (n = 328) or 2 mg/kg of ketamine (n = 327) for intubation. Only the emergency physician enrolling patients was aware of group assignment. The primary endpoint was the maximum score of the sequential organ failure assessment during the first 3 days in the intensive care unit. We excluded from the analysis patients who died before reaching the hospital or those discharged from the intensive care unit before 3 days (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00440102.Findings234 patients were analyzed in the etomidate group and 235 in the ketamine group. The mean maximum SOFA score between the two groups did not differ significantly (10.3 [SD 3.7] for etomidate vs. 9.6 [3.9] for ketamine; mean difference 0.7 [95% CI 0.0-1.4], p = 0.056). Intubation conditions did not differ significantly between the two groups (median intubation difficulty score 1 [IQR 0-3] in both groups; p = 0.70). The percentage of patients with adrenal insufficiency was significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the ketamine group (OR 6.7, 3.5-12.7). We recorded no serious adverse events with either study drug.InterpretationOur results show that ketamine is a safe and valuable alternative to etomidate for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients, and should be considered in those with sepsis.

Highlights

  • Findings patients were analyzed in the etomidate group and in the ketamine group

  • The mean maximum SOFA score between the two groups did not differ significantly (10.3 [SD 3.7] for etomidate vs. 9.6 [3.9] for ketamine; mean difference 0.7 [95% CI 0.0-1.4], p = 0.056)

  • The percentage of patients with adrenal insufficiency was significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the ketamine group

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ill patients often require emergency intubation. The use of etomidate as the sedative agent in this context has been challenged because it may cause a reversible adrenal insufficiency, potentially associated with increased in-hospital morbidity. The percentage of patients with adrenal insufficiency was significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the ketamine group (OR 6.7, 3.5-12.7). Interpretation Our results show that ketamine is a safe and valuable alternative to etomidate for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients, and should be considered in those with sepsis.

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.