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. Trial registration: The trial protocol was registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (identification number: TCTR20210213001). Registered 13 February 2021—Retrospectively registered, https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/export/pdf/TCTR20210213001.
Background: 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 controversy. High quality RCTs are needed to determine the optimal induction agents in sepsis. Methods: 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. Outcomes were compared with intention-to-treat analysis. The primary objective was to compare the 28-day survival outcomes between etomidate and ketamine. The secondary objectives outcomes were to compare 24-hour and 7-day survival rates, and adverse events after intubation. Results: 260 septic patients were enrolled; 130 patients/ drug arm whose baseline characteristics were well balance at baseline. In the etomidate group, 105 patients (80.8%) were alive at 28 days, as 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 hours (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 hours after intubation: 43.9% vs. 17.7%, RD, 26.2% (95% CI, 15.4% to 36.9%; P<0.001). Conclusions: In patients with sepsis who needed emergency intubation in the ED, there were no differences in early and late survival rates between etomidate and ketamine. However, etomidate associated with higher risks of early vasopressor needed after intubation. Trial registration: The trial protocol was registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry (identification number; TCTR20210213001). Registered 13 February 2021 – Retrospectively registered, https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/export/pdf/TCTR20210213001.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.