Etomidate increases susceptibility to pneumonia in trauma patients

Effects of Etomidate on Postintubation Hypotension, Inflammatory Markers, and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An International, Multicenter, Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of etomidate with postintubation hypotension, inflammation, and mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

International, multicenter, retrospective study.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill patients hospitalized specifically for COVID-19 from three major academic institutions in the US and Europe.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Patients were allocated into the etomidate (ET) group or another induction agent (OA) group. The primary outcome was postintubation hypotension. Secondary outcomes included postintubation inflammatory status, in-hospital mortality, and mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

171 patients with a median age of 68 (IQR 58-73) years were included (ET, n  =  98; OA, n  =  73). Etomidate was associated with lower postintubation mean arterial pressure [74.33 (64-85) mm Hg versus 81.84 (69.75-94.25) mm Hg, p  =  0.005] compared to other agents. No statistically significant differences were generally observed in inflammatory markers between the two groups at 7- and 14-days after admission to the intensive care unit. In-hospital mortality [77 (79%) versus 41 (56%), p  =  0.003] and mortality at 30-days [78 (80%) versus 43 (59%), p  =  0.006] were higher in the ET group. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only etomidate (p  =  0.009) and postintubation mean arterial pressure (p < 0.001) had a statistically significant effect on mortality, in contrast to stress-dose steroids (p  =  0.301), after adjusting for creatinine (p  =  0.695), blood urea nitrogen (p  =  0.153), age (p  =  0.055), oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (SpO2) (p  =  0.941), and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (p  =  0.712).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a single-bolus dose of etomidate in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower postintubation mean arterial pressure and higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality compared to other induction agents.

Immune modulation after traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) induces instant activation of innate immunity in brain tissue, followed by a systematization of the inflammatory response. The subsequent response, evolved to limit an overwhelming systemic inflammatory response and to induce healing, involves the autonomic nervous system, hormonal systems, and the regulation of immune cells. This physiological response induces an immunosuppression and tolerance state that promotes to the occurrence of secondary infections. This review describes the immunological consequences of TBI and highlights potential novel therapeutic approaches using immune modulation to restore homeostasis between the nervous system and innate immunity.

Effect of Etomidate vs Propofol for Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Major Postoperative Complications in Older Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Does etomidate compared with propofol provide a noninferior effect on in-hospital morbidity when used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in older patients undergoing abdominal surgery?

Findings

In this randomized clinical trial involving 1944 older patients who underwent elective abdominal surgery, the rate of major in-hospital complications was noninferior between patients who received etomidate and those who received propofol for general anesthesia (9.3% vs 8.7%).

Meaning

Findings of this trial indicate that etomidate anesthesia does not increase postoperative morbidity in older patients compared with propofol.

Importance

Older patients may benefit from the hemodynamic stability of etomidate for general anesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether the potential for adrenocortical suppression with etomidate may increase morbidity.

Objective

To test the primary hypothesis that etomidate vs propofol for anesthesia does not increase in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (Etomidate vs Propofol for In-hospital Complications [EPIC]) was conducted between August 15, 2017, and November 20, 2020, at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Participants were aged 65 to 80 years and were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either etomidate or propofol for general anesthesia by target-controlled infusion.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was a composite of major in-hospital postoperative complications (with a noninferiority margin of 3%). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic measurements; postoperative adrenocortical hormone levels; self-reported postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting; and mortality at postoperative months 6 and 12.

Results

A total of 1944 participants were randomized, of whom 1917 (98.6%) completed the trial. Patients were randomized to the etomidate group (n = 967; mean [SD] age, 70.3 [4.0] years; 578 men [59.8%]) or propofol group (n = 950; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [4.2] years; 533 men [56.1%]). The primary end point occurred in 90 of 967 patients (9.3%) in the etomidate group and 83 of 950 patients (8.7%) in the propofol group, which met the noninferiority criterion (risk difference [RD], 0.6%; 95% CI, –1.6% to 2.7%; P = .66). In the etomidate group, mean (SD) cortisol levels were lower at the end of surgery (4.8 [2.7] μg/dL vs 6.1 [3.4] μg/dL; P < .001), and mean (SD) aldosterone levels were lower at the end of surgery (0.13 [0.05] ng/dL vs 0.15 [0.07] ng/dL; P = .02) and on postoperative day 1 (0.14 [0.04] ng/dL vs 0.16 [0.06] ng/dL; P = .001) compared with the propofol group. No difference in mortality was observed between the etomidate and propofol groups at postoperative month 6 (2.2% vs 3.0%; RD, –0.8%; 95% CI, –2.2% to 0.7%) and 12 (3.3% vs 3.9%; RD, –0.6%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 1.0%). More patients had pneumonia in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (2.0% vs 0.3%; RD, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 2.8%; P = .001). Results were consistent in the per-protocol population.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this trial showed that, compared with propofol, etomidate anesthesia did not increase overall major in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients, although it induced transient adrenocortical suppression.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02910206

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.

A Critical Appraisal of the Effects of Anesthetics on Immune-system Modulation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Purpose

The aim of the present article was to briefly summarize current knowledge about the immunomodulatory effects of general anesthetics and the possible clinical effects of this immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies.

Findings

The novel coronavirus causes a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, with a large absolute number of patients experiencing severe pneumonia and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure. In these patients, the equilibrium of the inflammatory response is a major determinant of survival. The impact of anesthetics on immune-system modulation may vary and includes both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects.

Implications

Inhibition of the development of severe inflammation and/or the enhancement of inflammation resolution by anesthetics may limit organ damage and improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Etomidate Use for Rapid Sequence Intubation Is Not Associated With Nosocomial Infection

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate is commonly used for induction of anesthesia for rapid sequence intubation (RSI). It has little impact on hemodynamic status, making it a widely used agent. Due to the inhibition of cortisol production, etomidate causes adrenal suppression. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a correlation with etomidate use and the incidence of secondary infections.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients who received either etomidate or control (ketamine, propofol, or no agent) for RSI. The primary endpoint was the incidence of secondary infections. Secondary outcomes included number of mechanical ventilator-free days within 28 days, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit stay.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were reviewed, of which 129 (29.7%) met the study criteria (n = 94 etomidate; n = 35 control). The incidence of secondary infection was numerically higher in the etomidate group compared with the control group, though this was not statistically significant (38.7% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.447). Also, though the secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between the groups, the patients in the control group had a longer hospital stay (14.0 vs. 18.1, p = 0.20) and a longer ICU stay (11.0 vs. 14.1, p = 030). Furthermore, the etomidate group had a non-statistically significant higher incidence of bacteremia (8 vs. 0, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

The use of etomidate was not associated with increased incidence of secondary infection. To fully understand the effects of etomidate use and its subsequent adrenal suppression, larger studies are needed.

Recommandations Formalisées d’Experts SRLF/SFMU : Prise en charge des états de mal épileptiques en préhospitalier, en structure d’urgence et en réanimation dans les 48 premières heures (A l’exclusion du nouveau-né et du nourrisson)

La Société de réanimation de langue française et la Société française de médecine d’urgence ont décidé d’élaborer de nouvelles recommandations sur la prise en charge de l’état mal épileptique (EME) avec l’ambition de répondre le plus possible aux nombreuses questions pratiques que soulèvent les EME : diagnostic, enquête étiologique, traitement non spécifique et spécifique. Vingt-cinq experts ont analysé la littérature scientifique et formulé des recommandations selon la méthodologie GRADE. Les experts se sont accordés sur 96 recommandations. Les recommandations avec le niveau de preuve le plus fort ne concernent que l’EME tonico-clonique généralisé (EMTCG) : l’usage des benzodiazépines en première ligne (clonazépam en intraveineux direct ou midazolam en intramusculaire) est recommandé, répété 5 min après la première injection (à l’exception du midazolam) en cas de persistance clinique. En cas de persistance 5 min après cette seconde injection, il est proposé d’administrer la seconde ligne thérapeutique : valproate de sodium, (fos-)phénytoïne, phénobarbital ou lévétiracétam. La persistance avérée de convulsions 30 min après le début de l’administration du traitement de deuxième ligne signe l’EMETCG réfractaire. Il est alors proposé de recourir à un coma thérapeutique au moyen d’un agent anesthésique intraveineux de type midazolam ou propofol. Des recommandations spécifiques à l’enfant et aux autres EME sont aussi énoncées.

Pre-hospital emergent intubation in trauma patients: the influence of etomidate on mortality, morbidity and healthcare resource utilization

Background

Due to its favorable hemodynamic characteristics and by providing good intubation conditions etomidate is often used for induction of general anesthesia in trauma patients. It has been linked to temporary adrenal cortical dysfunction. The clinical relevance of this finding after a single-dose is still lacking appropriate evidence.

Methods

This retrospective multi-centre study is based on merged data from a German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) database and a large trauma patient registry. All trauma patients who were intubated prior to hospital admission with a documented Injury Severity Score ≥ 9 between 2008 and 2012 were eligible for analysis. The primary endpoint was hospital mortality. Other outcome measures were organ failures, sepsis, length of ventilation, as well as length of stay in hospital and ICU.

Results

One thousand six hundred ninety seven patients were enrolled into the study. Seven hundred sixty two patients received etomidate and 935 patients received other induction agents. The in-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (18.9% versus 18.2%; p = 0.71). Incidences of organ failures and sepsis were not increased in the etomidate group. However, health care resource utilization parameters were prolonged (after adjusting: + 1.3 days for ICU length of stay, p = 0.062; + 0.8 days for length of ventilation, p = 0.15; + 2,7 days for hospital length of stay, p = 0.034). A multivariable logistic regression analysis did not identify etomidate as an independent predictor of hospital mortality (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.77–1.57; p = 0.60).

Conclusions

This is the largest trial investigating outcome data for trauma patients who had received a single-dose of etomidate for induction of anesthesia. The use of etomidate did not affect mortality. The influence on morbidity and health care resource utilization remains unclear.

Hormone Therapy in Trauma Patients

Low-dose hydrocortisone reduces the dose of vasopressors and hospital length of stay; it may also decrease the rate of hospital-acquired pneumonia and time on ventilator. No major side effect was reported, but glycemia and natremia should be monitored. Progesterone did not enhance outcome of trauma patients. A meta-analysis suggested that oxandrolone was associated with shorter length of stay and reduced weight loss. Erythropoietin did not enhance neurologic outcome of traumatic brain-injured patients; such treatment, however, could reduce the mortality in subgroups of patients. This review focuses mainly on glucocorticoids, which are the most extensively investigated treatments in hormone therapy.

Steroid administration after anaesthetic induction with etomidate does not reduce in-hospital mortality or cardiovascular morbidity after non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

We tested the primary hypothesis that corticosteroid administration after etomidate exposure reduces a composite of in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated ASA physical status III and IV patients who had non-cardiac surgery with general anaesthesia at the Cleveland Clinic. Amongst 4275 patients in whom anaesthesia was induced with etomidate, 804 were also given steroid intraoperatively, mostly dexamethasone at a median dose of 6 mg. We successfully matched 582 steroid patients with 1023 non-steroid patients. The matched groups were compared on composite of in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular morbidity using a generalized-estimating-equation model. Secondly, the matched groups were compared on length of hospital stay using a Cox proportional hazard model, and were descriptively compared on intraoperative blood pressures using a standardized difference.

RESULTS

There was no significant association between intraoperative steroid administration after anaesthetic induction with etomidate and the composite of in-hospital mortality or cardiovascular morbidity; the estimated common odds ratio across the two components of the composite was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 1.16] for steroid vs non-steroid, P=0.33. The duration of postoperative hospitalisation was significantly shorter amongst steroid patients [median (Q1, Q3): 6 (3, 10) days] than non-steroid patients [7 (4, 11) days], with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.89 (0.80, 0.98) for steroid vs non-steroid, P=0.01. Intraoperative blood pressures were similar in steroid and non-steroid patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid administration after induction of anaesthesia with etomidate did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular morbidity.

Comparison of Etomidate and Ketamine for Induction During Rapid Sequence Intubation of Adult Trauma Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Induction doses of etomidate during rapid sequence intubation cause transient adrenal dysfunction, but its clinical significance on trauma patients is uncertain. Ketamine has emerged as an alternative for rapid sequence intubation induction. Among adult trauma patients intubated in the emergency department, we compare clinical outcomes among those induced with etomidate and ketamine.

METHODS

The study entailed a retrospective evaluation of a 4-year (January 2011 to December 2014) period spanning an institutional protocol switch from etomidate to ketamine as the standard induction agent for adult trauma patients undergoing rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department of an academic Level I trauma center. The primary outcome was hospital mortality evaluated with multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, vital signs, and injury severity and mechanism. Secondary outcomes included ICU-free days and ventilator-free days evaluated with multivariable ordered logistic regression using the same covariates.

RESULTS

The analysis included 968 patients, including 526 with etomidate and 442 with ketamine. Hospital mortality was 20.4% among patients induced with ketamine compared with 17.3% among those induced with etomidate (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 2.16). Patients induced with ketamine had ICU-free days (adjusted OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00) and ventilator-free days (adjusted OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20) similar to those of patients induced with etomidate.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis spanning an institutional protocol switch from etomidate to ketamine as the standard rapid sequence intubation induction agent for adult trauma patients, patient-centered outcomes were similar for patients who received etomidate and ketamine.

Effect of Etomidate on Pneumonia Development in Critically Ill, Nontrauma Patients

PURPOSE:

To determine whether etomidate use before intubation increased development of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in critically ill, nontrauma patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study of critically ill, nontrauma patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2012 to 2015 and intubated with or without etomidate was conducted. Demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnosis, critical illness scores, concomitant medications, and outcomes were obtained from medical records. Student t, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were performed as appropriate. Relevant characteristics were modeled using logistic regression techniques to determine whether any predicted HAP independently.

RESULTS:

Of the 174 patients, 94 (54%) received etomidate and 80 (46%) did not. There was no difference in HAP between etomidate and no etomidate groups (13.8% vs 23.7%, P = .092). Duration of mechanical ventilation (4.4 vs 4.6 days, P = .845), ICU length of stay (7.4 vs 6.9 days, P = .547), ICU mortality (14.9% vs 12.5%, P = .648), and hospital mortality (17% vs 16.2%, P = .892) were similar between the groups. For each 1-day increase in mechanical ventilation duration, the likelihood of HAP development increased by 21%. Patients who received etomidate but no neuromuscular-blocking drug were 80% less likely to develop HAP than those who did not receive etomidate or a neuromuscular-blocking drug (odds ratio: 0.202, 95% confidence interval: 0.045-0.908).

CONCLUSION:

Etomidate use was not associated with a difference in HAP development in critically ill, nontrauma patients.

Effects of etomidate in the adrenal and cytokine responses to hemorrhagic shock in rats

Hemorrhagic shock (HS) induces a compensatory endocrine and cytokine response which aims to restore homeostasis. This response can be modulated by general anesthetics. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated if etomidate modulates this response in experimental HS. After being premedicated with buprenorphine (0.05 mg/kg subcutaneously), male Wistar rats were anaesthetized with 5% isoflurane and divided into three groups: G1 (control, n = 16), G2 (n = 13), and G3 (n = 14). G2 and G3 were subjected to HS by collecting 30% of their blood volume and resuscitated 90 min later with the collected blood and normal saline, in a 1:3 ratio, respectively. G3 received etomidate (1 mg/kg IV) before HS. Blood gas analysis, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosterone, and plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10 and of TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-10 mRNA obtained through real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were measured at 0, 90, 150, and 240 min after HS induction. Compared with G2, etomidate-treated animals had significantly lower corticosterone, PO2, PO2/FiO2, base excess and HCO3, and higher TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α mRNA levels ( P <0.05). Etomidate-treated rats showed impaired adrenal and increased cytokine response to HS and evidence of worse tissue oxygenation and lung dysfunction. Based on these results, and until further studies are performed to confirm if these findings occur in clinical patients, we suggest that etomidate should be used cautiously in HS.

Etomidate in pediatric anesthesiology: Where are we now?

Etomidate is an intravenous anesthetic agent released for clinical use in the United States in 1972. Its popularity in clinical practice is the result of its beneficial effects on intracerebral dynamics with limited effects on hemodynamic function. These properties have made it a safe and effective anesthetic induction agent in both adult and pediatric patients with altered myocardial performance, congenial heart disease, or hypovolemia. However, recent concern has been expressed regarding its effects on the endogenous production of corticosteroids and the impact of that effect on patient outcomes. The following manuscript reviews clinical reports regarding etomidate use in the pediatric population and discusses recent concerns regarding its effects on corticosteroid metabolism and the implications of such effects for clinical use.

Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

The use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects mortality.The secondary objectives were to address, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects adrenal gland function, organ dysfunction, or health services utilization (as measured by intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor requirements).We repeated analyses within subgroups defined by the aetiologies of critical illness, timing of adrenal gland function measurement, and the type of comparator drug used.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; CINAHL; EMBASE; LILACS; International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; Web of Science; the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); and ISI BIOSIS Citation index(SM) on 8 February 2013. We reran the searches in August 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.We also searched the Scopus database of dissertations and conference proceedings and the US Food and Drug Administration Database. We handsearched major emergency medicine, critical care, and anaesthesiology journals.We handsearched the conference proceedings of major emergency medicine, anaesthesia, and critical care conferences from 1990 to current, and performed a grey literature search of the following: Current Controlled Trials; National Health Service - The National Research Register; ClinicalTrials.gov; NEAR website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation for critical illness, including but not limited to trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, septic shock, hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock, and undifferentiated shock states. We included single (bolus) dose etomidate for emergency airway intervention compared to any other rapid-acting intravenous bolus single-dose induction agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Refinement of our initial search results by title review, and then by abstract review was carried out by three review authors. Full-text review of potential studies was based on their adherence to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was decided by three independent review authors. We reported the decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion in accordance with the PRISMA statement.Electronic database searching yielded 1635 potential titles, and our grey literature search yielded an additional 31 potential titles. Duplicate titles were filtered leaving 1395 titles which underwent review of their titles and abstracts by three review authors. Sixty seven titles were judged to be relevant to our review, however only eight met our inclusion criteria and seven were included in our analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in the review and seven in the meta-analysis. Of those seven studies, only two were judged to be at low risk of bias. Overall, no strong evidence exists that etomidate increases mortality in critically ill patients when compared to other bolus dose induction agents (odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.60, 6 studies, 772 participants, moderate quality evidence). Due to a large number of participants lost to follow-up, we performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis. This gave a similar result (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). There was evidence that the use of etomidate in critically ill patients was associated with a positive adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test, and this difference was more pronounced at between 4 to 6 hours (OR 19.98; 95% CI 3.95 to 101.11) than after 12 hours (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47) post-dosing. Etomidate's use in critically ill patients was associated with a small increase in SOFA score, indicating a higher risk of multisystem organ failure (mean difference (MD) 0.70; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.39, 2 studies, 591 participants, high quality evidence), but this difference was not clinically meaningful. Etomidate use did not have an effect on ICU LOS (MD 1.70 days; 95% CI -2.00 to 5.40, 4 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), hospital LOS (MD 2.41 days; 95% CI -7.08 to 11.91, 3 studies, 152 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.14 days; 95% CI -1.67 to 5.95, 3 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), or duration of vasopressor use (MD 1.00 day; 95% CI -0.53 to 2.53, 1 study, 469 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we have not found conclusive evidence that etomidate increases mortality or healthcare resource utilization in critically ill patients, it does seem to increase the risk of adrenal gland dysfunction and multi-organ system dysfunction by a small amount. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown. This evidence is judged to be of moderate quality, owing mainly to significant attrition bias in some of the smaller studies, and new research may influence the outcomes of our review. The applicability of these data may be limited by the fact that 42% of the patients in our review were intubated for "being comatose", a population less likely to benefit from the haemodynamic stability inherent in etomidate use, and less at risk from its potential negative downstream effects of adrenal suppression.

The effects of propofol-midazolam-ketamine co-induction on hemodynamic changes and catecholamine response

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of co-induction with propofol-midazolam-ketamine with etomidate as the sole induction agent.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Operating room of a university hospital.

PATIENTS

60 ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for limited elective surgery requiring general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to two groups to receive etomidate 0.3 mg/kg (single-drug group) or propofol 0.6 mg/kg + ketamine 0.8 mg/kg + midazolam 0.06 mg/kg (three-drug group).

MEASUREMENTS

Hemodynamic responses (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure) were examined at baseline and at one, three, and 5 minutes after tracheal intubation. Plasma catecholamine levels were measured at baseline, one, and 5 minutes after tracheal intubation.

MAIN RESULTS

Heart rate (HR) changes differed significantly between the two groups at three minutes (P = 0.01) and 5 minutes (P = 0.00) after tracheal intubation. However, the HR increase in the three-drug group was in the acceptable range. Percentage changes of epinephrine level differed between the two groups at 5 minutes after tracheal intubation (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The higher norepinephrine/epinephrine ratio noted in the single-drug group may be implicated in lower adrenal sympathetic activity. Propofol-midazolam-ketamine co-induction may be used instead of etomidate for anesthesia induction in patients with hemodynamic instability.

Etomidate for anesthesia induction: friends or foe in major cardiac surgery?

Use of etomidate for anesthesia induction is still debated. In the previous issue of Critical Care, Heinrich and colleagues reported that etomidate for anesthesia induction had similar outcome in comparison with other drugs, in a specific population of 3,054 patients ahead of major cardiac surgery. For the authors, the similar outcomes for mortality and length of hospital stay add to the hemodynamic stability and the improved intubation conditions to support keeping etomidate in the emergency drugs armamentarium for induction of anesthesia in patients at risk of hemodynamic failure. This commentary reviews the results and implications of their study.

Comparison of clinical outcome variables in patients with and without etomidate-facilitated anesthesia induction ahead of major cardiac surgery: a retrospective analysis

Introduction

It is well known that etomidate may cause adrenal insufficiency. However, the clinical relevance of adrenal suppression after a single dose of etomidate remains vague. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the administration of a single dose of etomidate or an alternative induction regime ahead of major cardiac surgery and clinical outcome parameters associated with adrenal suppression and onset of sepsis.

Methods

The anesthesia and intensive care unit (ICU) records from patients undergoing cardiac surgery over five consecutive years (2008 to 2012) were retrospectively analyzed. The focus of the analysis was on clinical parameters like mortality, ventilation hours, renal failure, and sepsis-linked serum parameters. Multivariate analysis and Cox regression were applied to derive the results.

Results

In total, 3,054 patient records were analyzed. A group of 1,775 (58%) patients received a single dose of etomidate; 1,279 (42%) patients did not receive etomidate at any time. There was no difference in distribution of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical score, duration of surgery, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Postoperative data showed no significant differences between the two groups in regard to mortality (6.8% versus 6.4%), mean of mechanical ventilation hours (21.2 versus 19.7), days in the ICU (2.6 versus 2.5), hospital days (18.7 versus 17.4), sepsis-associated parameters, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and incidence of renal failure. Administration of etomidate showed no significant influence (P = 0.6) on hospital mortality in the multivariate Cox analysis.

Conclusions

This study found no evidence for differences in key clinical outcome parameters based on anesthesia induction with or without administration of a single dose of etomidate. In consequence, etomidate might remain an acceptable option for single-dose anesthesia induction.

The impact of etomidate on mortality in trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate has a neutral hemodynamic profile which has made it an attractive medication for emergent intubation. Despite theoretical advantages of etomidate administration in the trauma patient, there are incomplete data to support its use. This study examined the association of etomidate use for emergent intubation in traumatic illness with patient mortality.

METHODS

This is a historical cohort study using the Nova Scotia Trauma Registry. It included all major adult trauma patients who required tracheal intubation at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Canada from January 23, 2000 to March 25, 2012. Prospectively recorded data were analyzed, including patient demographics, presence of comorbidities, trauma specific variables, admission and discharge vitals, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, mechanical ventilation-free days, and mortality. Associations between the use of etomidate and 28-day mortality are presented as odds ratios. Multivariable logistic regression models were created adjusting for age, injury severity score (ISS), sex, comorbidities, presence of traumatic brain injury, and injury type. The effects of etomidate on other relevant outcome variables were assessed using unpaired Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight patients were included in the study, and there were 42 deaths. Patients receiving etomidate were similar to those who did not, including ISS and pre-intubation blood pressure. The 28-day mortality was 18.7% in the etomidate group and 11.1% in the non-etomidate group (odds ratio = 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 3.57; P = 0.07). After adjustment for age, female sex, ISS, and comorbidity, the odds ratio was 1.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 4.37; P = 0.11). There were no differences between the two groups in ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or number of ventilation-free days.

CONCLUSION

The association between use of a single dose of etomidate for emergency tracheal intubation in the trauma patient and mortality is inconclusive. Etomidate administration should be used with caution in trauma patients requiring tracheal intubation. Further data are required to determine the safety and risk-benefit of etomidate use in this patient population.

Pros and cons of etomidate--more discussion than evidence?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the most recent publications in the long-lived debate over the use of etomidate in critically ill septic and trauma patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Virtually without controversy is the hemodynamic stability after its use for induction of anesthesia on the one hand, and its negative effect on steroid synthesis on the other. The rating of the relative importance of both phenomena for the outcome of patients is however a highly controversial issue. We will discuss the most recent publications for two patient groups: trauma and critically ill septic patients. New meta-analyses and smaller studies have been published and might help us to weigh pros and cons in our patients. Sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials remain absent. The question whether supplemented corticosteroids after etomidate improve outcome is answered negatively by two recent studies.

SUMMARY

A single dose of etomidate supplies good intubation conditions with hemodynamic stability, but increases the risk for adrenal insufficiency. The relative importance of these characteristics for the patients' outcome remains controversial, as there is a lack of direct evidence. According to the principle 'nihil nocere', reasoning argues against its use, especially in septic patients or in those at major risk to develop septic complications (e.g. trauma patients).

[Interaction between hypnotic agents and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocorticotropic axis during surgery]

During stress, the relationship between the central nervous system and the immune system is essential to maintain homeostasis. The main neuroendocrine system involved in this interaction is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA), which via the synthesis of glucocorticoids will modulate the intensity of the inflammatory response. Anaesthetic agents could be interacting with the HPA axis during surgery. Although etomidate currently remains in the center of the discussions, it seems, at least experimentally, that most hypnotics have the capacity to modulate the synthesis of adrenal steroids. Nevertheless, with the large literature on this subject, etomidate seems to be the most deleterious hypnotic agent on the HPA axis function. Its use should be limited when HPA axis is already altered.

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for orotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Single studies of video laryngoscopy (VL) use for airway management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients have produced controversial findings. The aim of this study was to critically review the literature to investigate whether VL reduces difficult orotracheal intubation (OTI) rate, first-attempt success, and complications related to intubation in ICU patients, compared to standard therapy, defined as direct laryngoscopy (DL).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, as well as prospective and retrospective observational studies, by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and bibliographies of articles retrieved. We screened for relevant studies that enrolled adults in whom the trachea was intubated in the ICU and compared VL to DL. We included studies reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest to perform a meta-analysis. We generated pooled odd ratios (OR) across studies. The primary outcome measure was difficult OTI. The secondary outcomes were first-attempt success, Cormack 3/4 grades, and complications related to intubation (severe hypoxemia, severe cardiovascular collapse, airway injury, esophageal intubation).

RESULTS

Nine trials with a total of 2,133 participants (1,067 in DL and 1,066 in VL) were included in the current analysis. Compared to DL, VL reduced the risk of difficult OTI [OR 0.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.44, p < 0.001)], Cormack 3/4 grades [OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.17-0.41, p < 0.001)], and esophageal intubation [0.14 (95% CI 0.02-0.81, p = 0.03)] and increased the first-attempt success [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.35-3.16, p < 0.001)]. No statistically significant difference was found for severe hypoxemia, severe cardiovascular collapse or airway injury.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that VL could be useful in airway management of ICU patients.

Operative care and surveillance in severe trauma patients. Interference between resuscitation treatments and anaesthesiology, and consequence on immunity

Major trauma remains a worldwide cause of morbi-mortality. Early mortality is the consequence of hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury. During early resuscitation, anaesthesia is often mandatory to perform surgery. It is mandatory to master the hemodynamic effects of hypnotic drugs in order to anticipate their potential deleterious effects in the setting of hemorrhagic shock. After early resuscitation, trauma patients present a high prevalence of nosocomial pneumonia, which sustains major morbidity. Nosocomial pneumonia are the consequence of an overwhelming systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as well as a trauma-related immunosuppression. The administration of hemisuccinate of hydrocortisone modulates the SIRS and reduces the risk of nosocomial pneumonia as well as the length of mechanical ventilation. Finally in the operating theatre, fighting against hypothermia and un-anatomical positions, which can aggravate rhabdomyolysis, are both mandatory.

Adrenocortical suppression and recovery after continuous hypnotic infusion: etomidate versus its soft analogue cyclopropyl-methoxycarbonyl metomidate

Introduction

Etomidate is no longer administered as a continuous infusion for anesthetic maintenance or sedation, because it results in profound and persistent suppression of adrenocortical steroid synthesis with potentially lethal consequences in critically ill patients. We hypothesized that rapidly metabolized soft analogues of etomidate could be developed that do not produce persistent adrenocortical dysfunction even after prolonged continuous infusion. We hope that such agents might also provide more rapid and predictable anesthetic emergence. We have developed the soft etomidate analogue cyclopropyl-methoxycarbonyl etomidate (CPMM). Upon termination of 120-minute continuous infusions, hypnotic and encephalographic recoveries occur in four minutes. The aims of this study were to assess adrenocortical function during and following 120-minute continuous infusion of CPMM and to compare the results with those obtained using etomidate.

Methods

Dexamethasone-suppressed rats were randomized into an etomidate group, CPMM group, or control group. Rats in the etomidate and CPMM groups received 120-minute continuous infusions of etomidate and CPMM, respectively. Rats in the control group received neither hypnotic. In the first study, adrenocortical function during hypnotic infusion was assessed by administering adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) 90 minutes after the start of the hypnotic infusion and measuring plasma corticosterone concentrations at the end of the infusion 30 minutes later. In the second study, adrenocortical recovery following hypnotic infusion was assessed by administering ACTH every 30 minutes after infusion termination and measuring plasma corticosterone concentrations 30 minutes after each ACTH dose.

Results

During hypnotic infusion, ACTH-stimulated serum corticosterone concentrations were significantly lower in the CPMM and etomidate groups than in the control group (100 ± 64 ng/ml and 33 ± 32 ng/ml versus 615 ± 265 ng/ml, respectively). After hypnotic infusion, ACTH-stimulated serum corticosterone concentrations recovered to control values within 30 minutes in the CPMM group but remained suppressed relative to those in the control group for more than 3 hours in the etomidate group.

Conclusions

Both CPMM and etomidate suppress adrenocortical function during continuous infusion. However, recovery occurs significantly more rapidly following infusion of CPMM.