Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
- PMID: 19573904
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60949-1
Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Background: Critically ill patients often require emergency intubation. The use of etomidate as the sedative agent in this context has been challenged because it might 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.
Methods: In this randomised, 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 computerised 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.
Findings: 234 patients were analysed 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.
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.
Funding: French Ministry of Health.
Comment in
-
Best pharmacological practice in prehospital intubation.Lancet. 2009 Jul 25;374(9686):267-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61071-0. Epub 2009 Jul 1. Lancet. 2009. PMID: 19573905 No abstract available.
-
Etomidate versus ketamine for sedation in acutely ill patients.Lancet. 2009 Oct 10;374(9697):1240; author reply 1241. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61784-0. Lancet. 2009. PMID: 19819388 No abstract available.
-
Etomidate versus ketamine for sedation in acutely ill patients.Lancet. 2009 Oct 10;374(9697):1240-1; author reply 1241. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61785-2. Lancet. 2009. PMID: 19819389 No abstract available.
-
Acutely ill patients: rapid sequence intubation with etomidate or ketamine.Natl Med J India. 2009 Nov-Dec;22(6):308-9. Natl Med J India. 2009. PMID: 20384021 No abstract available.
-
Etomidate and adrenal insufficiency: the controversy continues.Crit Care. 2010;14(6):338. doi: 10.1186/cc9338. Epub 2010 Dec 9. Crit Care. 2010. PMID: 21144009 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Should emergency physicians use etomidate for rapid sequence intubation?CJEM. 2011 Jan;13(1):44-7. doi: 10.2310/8000.2011.100189. CJEM. 2011. PMID: 21324297 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
