Single Dose Of Etomidate Research Articles

Independent risk factors of mortality in patients with sepsis receiving single-dose etomidate as an induction agent during rapid sequence intubation in a large tertiary emergency department in Thailand

BackgroundThere is limited evidence regarding factors associated with mortality in septic patients receiving etomidate. This study aimed to determine independent pre-intubation factors predicting 28-day mortality in septic patients receiving single-dose etomidate as an induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI).MethodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included intubated septic patients receiving etomidate as an induction agent during RSI in the emergency department of Siriraj hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, between January 1st, 2016 and June 30th, 2020. Pre-intubation characteristics were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Independent risk factors associated with 28-day mortality were identified using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Association between etomidate dosage and mortality was also determined.ResultsA total of 344 patients, 238 (69%) survivors and 106 (31%) non-survivors, were included in the analyses. The initial Cox hazards model identified a pre-intubation lactate level ≥ 4 mmol/L as an independent factor associated with mortality (adjusted Hazards ratio [aHR] 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55–4.56). After removing lactate level from the model due to limited lactate values in the data, cancer was also predictive of 28-day mortality (aHR 1.83, 95%CI 1.10–3.04), while patients with respiratory infections and underlying chronic lung disease were associated with lower mortality (aHR 0.54, 95%CI 0.37–0.80 and aHR 0.57, 0.33–0.96, respectively). Etomidate dosage was not associated with mortality in our study.ConclusionIn septic patients who received a single dose of etomidate, a pre-intubation lactate level ≥ 4 mmol/L and cancer were associated with increased 28-day mortality, while respiratory infection and underlying chronic lung disease were associated with lower mortality. Physicians may take these factors into consideration when selecting induction agents for septic patients.

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

Background: Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol. Methods: This was a retrospective before–after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents. Results: One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate: 18.6% vs. propofol: 14.0%, p = 0.031). Conclusion: Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.

Association between Etomidate Use for Rapid Sequence Intubation and Adrenal Insufficiency in Sepsis.

BackgroundThe risk of adrenal insufficiency (AI) in using single-dose etomidate for intubation among patients with sepsis remains controversial. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of AI and characterize the risk factors in patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation (RSI).MethodsThis is a retrospective study of prospectively-acquired data evaluating surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients who developed respiratory failure undergoing RSI.ResultsOf the 44 adult SICU patients who developed respiratory failure, 34 patients received etomidate. The average age for the total cohort, for the patients that received etomidate and for those who did not, was 70.91 ± 14.92, 72.82 ± 13.61 years and 64.40 ± 15.93, respectively. Twenty-four patients of the total cohort (54.55%) developed AI; 26 had septic shock (59.09%), and 16 patients had AI and septic shock (36.36%). There was no statistical significance between the incidence of AI in patients who received etomidate (47%) and those who did not (80%). However, in the subset of patients who received etomidate for RSI, there was a non-significant trend toward increased incidence of AI in those who were septic compared to those who were not (p = 0.06).ConclusionA single dose of etomidate used for RSI in SICU patients is not associated with the development of AI or mortality. However, a trend was shown, although not statistically significant, towards the development of AI in septic patients. High-quality and adequately powered randomized control trials (RCTs) are warranted.

Anesthesiologist and Emergency Medicine Physician Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Etomidate for Intubation.

The use of etomidate as an induction agent for critically ill patients is controversial. While its favorable hemodynamic profile is enviable, etomidate has been shown to cause transient adrenal suppression. The clinical consequences of transient adrenal suppression are poorly understood. Anecdotally, some clinicians advocate strongly for etomidate, while others feel it can cause significant harm. To better understand the current clinical environment with respect to single-dose etomidate use in critically ill patients, Canadian anesthesiologists and Canadian emergency medicine (EM) physicians were questioned regarding their opinions, knowledge, and preferences about etomidate use as an induction agent. Invitations to participate with the electronic survey were sent to 100 Canadian EM physicians and 260 Canadian anesthesiologists. The survey had 4 general parts: demographics, familiarity with the current literature, choice of induction agent given various clinical scenarios, and opinions on the controversy. The Pearson γ2 test was used to detect whether significant differences exist between physician groups. Ninety three anesthesiologists and 42 EM physicians responded for response rates of 36% and 42%. There were no self-reported differences in knowledge about etomidate properties between EM physicians and anesthesiologists. There were significant differences in etomidate use between EM physicians and anesthesiologists in general rapid sequence intubation, noncritically ill patients, and those with undifferentiated hypotension. Both EM physicians and anesthesiologists describe the current etomidate controversy as significant and not adequately resolved. There is no significant difference in self-reported etomidate knowledge between anesthesiologists and EM physicians; however, significant practice pattern differences exist with EM physicians using etomidate more often. Broad agreement supports future research to investigate etomidate's impact in critically ill patients.

Etomidato en el manejo emergente de la vía aérea: el fundamento de la controversia

Etomidate for the airway management of patients with dysfunctional cardiovascular and/or neurological systems has been a subject of debate due to its inhibitory effect on the adrenal response to stress. There are questions about the certainty of the effect of single-dose etomidate on adrenal steroidogenesis, its impact on mortality, and other clinical outcomes, including the role of concomitant use of steroids. A non-structured search was performed in MEDLINE and SciELO databases. Conclusions are that single-dose etomidate does decrease serum cortisol levels, with the maximum effect occurring during the first 1-4hours, and its use seems not to have any effect on mortality. It also appears to have no impact on ICU length of stay, or other clinical outcomes. However, there are no controlled trials with sufficient individual power to demonstrate these findings. Finally, there is not enough evidence to contraindicate its use, so it is still an attractive pharmacological alternative in emergency settings.

Effects of single-dose etomidate on prognosis of critical patients: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the effects of single-dose etomidate on the mortality and the risk of adrenal insufficiency in patients with critical illness. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and Vip Database were searched for the relevant randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently selected the literature, extracted the data, and then performed Meta-analysis usinge RevMan5.3 software. The Mantel-Haenszel method with the random-effects modeling was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RR) and 95%CI. Results Twenty-six studies [5 randomized controlled trial(RCT) and 21 observational studies] involving 7 430 patients were qualified. Pooled analysis suggested that etomidate was not associated with increased mortality in critical patients [RCT:RR=1.16, 95%CI(0.93, 1.45), P>0.05] [observational studies:RR=1.07, 95%CI(1.00, 1.14)(P=0.05)]. These findings were also consistent across all subgroup analyses off observational studies. Etomidate increased the risk of adrenal insufficiency in critical patients[RCT:RR=1.61, 95%CI(1.06, 2.46)(P<0.01)][observational studies: RR=1.41, 95%CI(1.22, 1.62)(P<0.01)]. Conclusions Current evidence indicates that single-dose etomidate does not increase the mortality, but increases the risk of adrenal insufficiency in critical patients. However, this finding largely relies on data from observational studies and is potentially subject to selection bias. Therefore, high-quality and adequately powered RCT are warranted. Key words: Etomidate; Critical ill patients; Mortality; Adrenal insufficiency; Meta-analysis

The Effects of Single-Dose Etomidate Versus Propofol on Cortisol Levels in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Urologic Surgery

The Effects of Single-Dose Etomidate Versus Propofol on Cortisol Levels in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Urologic Surgery

Etomidate exposure in early infant mice (P10) does not induce apoptosis or affect behaviour.

Numerous animal studies have shown that all commonly used intravenous anaesthetic drugs and volatile agents may cause neuronal apoptosis following exposure in early life. Most studies have focussed on detecting increased apoptosis but their methods are not always readily transferrable to humans. The lipid formulation of etomidate represents an alternative to the currently established intravenous anaesthetic agents but there is no animal or human data on apoptosis or long-term behavioural changes. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of etomidate on cerebral neuronal apoptosis and long-term behavioural effects using an established mouse model that represents the clinically relevant period of anaesthesia during early infancy in humans. Six groups of 10 day old mice (P10) were injected with either etomidate 0.3, 3 or 10 mg/kg, propofol 60 mg/kg, ketamine 50 mg/kg or placebo only. Apoptosis in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus was assessed 24 h after treatment (activated caspase-3). Late behavioural effects were tested at 2 months of age (spontaneous activity in a new environment). No evidence was found of differences in activated caspase 3-concentrations among the study groups. Significant late behavioural changes were only observed in the ketamine group. A single dose of etomidate in early infant mice at P10 did not produce evidence of cerebral apoptosis or impaired adult motor behaviour.

The use of etomidate for rapid sequence induction in septic patients.

There is continued debate about the clinical ramifications of single-dose etomidate for rapid sequence induction (RSI) in patients with sepsis. This history of this debate includes early studies identifying an association between etomidate infusions and mortality with adrenal suppression as a hypothesized mechanism. More recent data describing the high prevalence of adrenal insufficiency in patients with sepsis has prompted additional investigation as to the clinical effects of single-dose etomidate when utilized as an agent in RSI. Acknowledging the small number and heterogeneity of studies on this topic, we feel that the recent meta-analysis by Gu et al. provides an accurate and complete assessment of the existing literature on this topic. We continue to utilize etomidate for the purposes of RSI in this critically ill patient population and feel that the current data supports this position.

Single-Dose Etomidate Does Not Increase Mortality in Patients With Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

The effect of single-dose etomidate on mortality in patients with sepsis remains controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate whether a single dose of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation increased mortality in patients with sepsis. PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies regarding the effect of single-dose etomidate on mortality in adults with sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. Eighteen studies (two RCTs and 16 observational studies) in 5,552 patients were included. Pooled analysis suggested that single-dose etomidate was not associated with increased mortality in patients with sepsis in both the RCTs (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.84-1.72; P = .31; I(2) = 0%) and the observational studies (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13; P = .23; I(2) = 25%). When only adjusted RRs were pooled in five observational studies, RR for mortality was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.79-1.39; P = .748; I(2) = 71.3%). These findings also were consistent across all subgroup analyses for observational studies. Single-dose etomidate increased the risk of adrenal insufficiency in patients with sepsis (eight studies; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64; P < .00001). Current evidence indicates that single-dose etomidate does not increase mortality in patients with sepsis. However, this finding largely relies on data from observational studies and is potentially subject to selection bias; hence, high-quality and adequately powered RCTs are warranted.

Etomidate Use and Postoperative Outcomes among Cardiac Surgery Patients

Although a single dose of etomidate can cause relative adrenal insufficiency, the impact of etomidate exposure on postoperative outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the association between a single induction dose of etomidate and clinically important postoperative outcomes after cardiac surgery. The authors retrospectively examined the association between etomidate exposure during induction of anesthesia and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery from January 2007 to December 2009 by using multivariate logistic regression analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Postoperative outcomes of interest were severe hypotension, mechanical ventilation hours, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Sixty-two percent of 3,127 patients received etomidate. Etomidate recipients had a higher incidence of preoperative congestive heart failure (23.0 vs. 18.3%; P = 0.002) and a lower incidence of preoperative cardiogenic shock (1.3 vs. 4.0%; P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for severe hypotension and in-hospital mortality associated with receiving etomidate was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58-1.09) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.45-1.24), respectively, and the adjusted hazard ratio for time to mechanical ventilation removal and time to hospital discharge was 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21) and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18), respectively. Propensity score analysis did not change the association between etomidate use and postoperative outcomes. In this study, there was no evidence to suggest that etomidate exposure was associated with severe hypotension, longer mechanical ventilation hours, longer length of hospital stay, or in-hospital mortality. Etomidate should remain an option for induction of anesthesia in cardiac surgery patients.

Etomidate and General Anesthesia

Induction of general anesthesia with control of ventilation remains a routine procedure both in critically ill patients and in those undergoing elective surgery. Etomidate is considered the drug of choice for emergency intubation procedure because of a good perceived benefit/ risk ratio, including hemodynamic stability, and minor side effects such as, myoclonus. Administered in conjunction with a rapid-onset neuromuscular-blocking drug, etomidate remains the preferred drug by most emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, and intensivists for rapid sequence induction of anesthesia. Publication of observational cohort studies suggesting increased mortality with the use of etomidate in septic patients has, however, raised safety concerns. In a systematic review and meta-analysis in septic patients, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Chan et al. 1 reported that a single dose of etomidate for induction of anesthesia was associated with increased 28-day mortality (relative risk 1.20, 95% confidence inter val, 1.02–1.4). Similar findings were observed in a post hoc analysis of the Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) trial. An increased 28-day mortality rate (43% vs 31%, P = 0.03) was noted in patients who received etomidate compared with patients who did not. 2 However, other authors did not observe such an increased risk of mortality when using etomidate in septic patients 3 and even observed a decreased mortality rate after adjustment for severity of illness. 4 Similarly, randomized controlled trials have not provided evidence for an increased risk of death following a single dose of etomidate in critically ill patients (Fig. 1). 5–8 In the largest multicenter study in the prehospi

Single-Dose Etomidate Is Not Associated With Increased Mortality in ICU Patients With Sepsis

Retrospective analyses of several trials suggest etomidate may be unsafe for intubation in patients with sepsis. We evaluated the association of etomidate and mortality in a large cohort of septic patients to determine if single-dose etomidate was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Retrospective cohort study at the Philips eICU Research Institute ICU clinical database. None. Among 741,036 patients monitored from 2008 through 2010, we identified 2,014 adults intubated in the ICU 4-96 hrs after admission, having clinical criteria consistent with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In all, 1,102 patients received etomidate and 912 received other induction agents for intubation. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, but we also evaluated demographic and clinical factors, severity of illness, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator days, and vasopressor days. Competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for primary outcomes. Demographics and illness severity were similar between the groups. Hospital mortality was similar between the groups (37.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.77), as were ICU mortality (30.1% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.99), ICU length of stay (8.7 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.66), and hospital length of stay (15.2 vs. 14.6 days, p = 0.31). More patients in the etomidate group received steroids before and after intubation (52.9% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), but vasopressor use and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar. No regression model showed an independent association of etomidate with mortality, shock, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU or hospital length of stay, or vasopressor use. A hospital mortality model limited to only patients with septic shock (n = 650) also showed no association of etomidate and hospital mortality. In a mixed-diagnosis group of critically ill patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, single-dose etomidate administration for intubation in the ICU was not associated with higher mortality or other adverse clinical outcomes.

Etomidate Does Not Increase Mortality in Intubated Septic Patients

Single-dose etomidate for rapid sequence induction can cause transient adrenal suppression, but data are mixed regarding its clinical significance. To

Etomidate for critically ill patients. Con

Etomidate is an imidazole-derived hypnotic agent preferentially used for rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia because of its favourable haemodynamic profile. However, 11β-hydroxylase inhibition causes adrenal insufficiency with potentially fatal consequences in specific populations. We review the arguments against the liberal administration of etomidate in critically ill, and especially septic, patients. This review considered only high-quality and prospective studies with a low risk of bias. Three major effects have been observed with the clinical use of a single dose of etomidate. First, independent of the clinical setting, etomidate causes adrenal dysfunction via 11β-hydroxylase inhibition ranging from 12 to 48 h, making the drug unsuitable for use in elective interventions. Second, in a systematic review with meta-analyses, including 3715 septic patients, the relative risk of death with etomidate was 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.35). Based on this statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in mortality, a single dose of etomidate has to be avoided in patients with septic shock. Third, in small randomised controlled trials, a single dose of etomidate in trauma patients was associated with an increased incidence of pneumonia (56.7 vs. 25.9% in controls), prolonged intensive care stay (6.3 vs. 1.5 days) and prolonged hospital stay (11.6 vs. 6.4 days). Based on these randomised controlled trials, the use of etomidate should be avoided in unstable trauma patients. Midazolam and ketamine are two valid alternatives with similar intubation and haemodynamic conditions as etomidate but without its adverse effects. Therefore, for safety reasons, etomidate should be avoided in the critical conditions of sepsis and trauma.

Etomidate is associated with mortality and adrenal insufficiency in sepsis

To evaluate the effects of single-dose etomidate on the adrenal axis and mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies with meta-analysis. Literature search of EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Database, and Evidence-Based Medical Reviews. Sepsis patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation. None. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies with meta-analysis assessing the effects of etomidate on adrenal insufficiency and all-cause mortality published between January 1950 and February 2012. We only examined studies including septic patients. All-cause mortality served as our primary end point, whereas the prevalence of adrenal insufficiency was our secondary end point. Adrenal insufficiency was determined using a cosyntropin stimulation test in all studies. We used a random effects model for analysis; heterogeneity was assessed with the I statistic. Publication bias was evaluated with Begg's test. Five studies were identified that assessed mortality in those who received etomidate. A total of 865 subjects were included. Subjects who received etomidate were more likely to die (pooled relative risk 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.42; Q statistic, 4.20; I2 statistic, 4.9%). Seven studies addressed the development of adrenal suppression associated with the administration of etomidate; 1,303 subjects were included. Etomidate administration increased the likelihood of developing adrenal insufficiency (pooled relative risk 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.46; Q statistic, 10.7; I2 statistic, 43.9%). Administration of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation is associated with higher rates of adrenal insufficiency and mortality in patients with sepsis.

Adrenal inhibition following a single dose of etomidate in intubated traumatic brain injury victims

Etomidate is frequently used to intubate traumatic brain injury (TBI) victims, even though it has been linked to adrenal insufficiency (AI) in some populations. Few studies have explored the risk of prolonged etomidate-induced AI among TBI victims. To determine the risk and the length of AI induced by etomidate in patients intubated for moderate and severe TBI. Participants in this observational study were moderate to severe intubated TBI victims aged ≥ 16 years. The anesthetic used (etomidate versus others) was determined solely by the treating emergency physician. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation tests (250 μg) were performed 24, 48, and 168 hours after intubation. AI was defined as an increase in serum cortisol 1 hour post-ACTH test (delta cortisol) of less than 248.4 nmol/L. Forty subjects (participation 42.6%) underwent ACTH testing. Fifteen received etomidate, and 25 received another anesthetic. There were no statistically significant differences between groups as to the cumulative incidence of AI at any measurement time. However, at 24 hours, exploratory post hoc analyses showed a significant decrease in delta cortisol (adjusted means: etomidate group: 305.1 nmol/L, 95% CI 214.7-384.8 versus other anesthetics: 500.5 nmol/L, 95% CI 441.8-565.7). This decrease was not present at 48 and 168 hours. In TBI victims, although a single dose of etomidate does not increase the cumulative incidence of AI as defined, it seems to decrease the adrenal response to an ACTH test for 24 hours. The clinical impacts of this finding remain to be determined.

Does Etomidate Increase Vasopressor Requirements in Patients Needing Mechanical Ventilation?

Single-dose etomidate is used as an induction agent for rapid-sequence intubation and is associated with transient adrenal insufficiency. There is ongoing debate as to the clinical consequences of this transient adrenal insufficiency for critically ill patients. To determine if the use of etomidate is associated with higher requirements for a vasopressor, relative to other induction agents, at a single time point (24 h after administration of the induction agent) in patients needing mechanical ventilation. In this retrospective observational study utilizing electronic health records, a convenience sample of 50 patients who had undergone intubation in the emergency department with etomidate were matched (1:1) with patients who had received other induction agents. Matching was based on primary admitting diagnosis relating to the cause of shock, APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, age, and sex. All patients were subsequently admitted to critical care areas for management. As a surrogate marker of hemodynamic instability, the vasopressor dose was recorded 24 h after intubation. Vasopressor doses were converted to norepinephrine equivalents for comparison. The mean dose of vasopressors, in norepinephrine equivalents, was 4 μg/min(-1) for patients receiving etomidate and 3 μg/min(-1) for the control group (mean difference 0.7 μg min(-1), 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9 to 3.2 μg min(-1), p = 0.61). Twelve of the patients in the etomidate group and 16 of those in the control group required the use of vasopressors at 24 h following intubation (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 0.53 to 13.99, p = 0.34). Single-dose etomidate does not adversely affect hemodynamic stability, as measured by the dose of vasopressors required at 24 h after administration.

Haemodynamic Consequences of Etomidate Administration in Elective Cardiac Surgery

Morel, J.*; Salard, M.*; Castelain, C.*; Bayon, M. C.*; Lambert, P.*; Vola, M.†; Auboyer, C.*; Molliex, S.* Author Information

Single-Dose Etomidate for Intubation in the Trauma Patient

BackgroundConcerns over adrenal suppression caused by a single dose of etomidate for intubation led to limiting its use in trauma patients in 2006. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare mortality, hypotension, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS) for trauma patients requiring intubation during periods of liberal vs. limited etomidate use. MethodsA retrospective review of trauma patients requiring emergent intubation who presented between August 2004 and December 2008, before and after we decided to limit the use of etomidate. Data were collected on patient demographics, induction agents used, episodes of hypotension in the first 24h, ICU and total hospital LOS, and survival. ResultsOf 1325 trauma patients intubated in the Emergency Department during the study period, 443 occurred during the 23 months before July 2006 (liberal etomidate use) and 882 in the 30 months after July 2006 (limited etomidate use). During the liberal use period, 258/443 (58%) were intubated using etomidate, compared to 205/882 (23%, p<0.0001) during the period of limited use. We found no significant differences in mortality (30% vs. 29%, p=0.70), mean ICU days (8.2 vs. 8.8, p=0.356), or mean hospital LOS (13.8 vs. 14.4 days, p=0.55). Episodes of hypotension were more common in the limited etomidate use group (45% vs. 33%, p<0.0001). ConclusionsA significant reduction in the use of etomidate in trauma patients was not associated with differences in mortality, ICU days, or hospital LOS, but was associated with an increase in episodes of hypotension within 24h of presentation.