Etomidate and the Risk of Complications After Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

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

How We Would Treat Our Own Pulmonary Hypertension if We Needed to Undergo Cardiac Surgery

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a disease that has many etiologies and is particularly prevalent in patients presenting for cardiac surgery, with which it is linked to poor outcomes. This manuscript is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the impact of PH on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing cardiac surgery. The diagnosis of PH often involves a combination of noninvasive and invasive testing, whereas preoperative optimization frequently necessitates the use of specific medications that affect anesthetic management of these patients. The authors postulate that a thoughtful, multidisciplinary approach is required to deliver excellent perioperative care. Furthermore, they use an index case to illustrate the implications of managing a patient with pulmonary hypertension who presents for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

CON: Propofol Is Better Than Etomidate for Induction in Cardiac Surgical Patients

There is an ongoing debate regarding the choice of ideal induction agent between propofol and etomidate for cardiac surgical patients. Etomidate appears to be better than propofol as the induction agent due to the superior hemodynamic stability. However, the adrenal suppression due to etomidate can pose challenges to the anesthesiologist in certain clinical situations.