SHEN XC,AOX,CAOY,et al.Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol-remifentanil[J].,2015,21(4):1-8.
Abstract Background This prospective and randomized study was designed to compare safety, potential complications, and patient and examiner satisfaction of 2 anesthetic combinations - etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil - in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy. Material and Methods A group of 720 patients, aged 60-80 years, scheduled for diagnostic gastroscopy under sedation were prospectively randomized. After 0.4-0.6 渭g kg-1 of remifentanil was infused, etomidate or propofol was administered. Patients in the etomidate group received doses of etomidate at 0.1-0.15 mg kg-1 followed by 4-6 mg. Patients in the propofol group received doses of propofol at 1-2 mg kg-1 followed by 20-40 mg. Physiological indexes were evaluated for the 715 of 720 patients that completed the treatment. The onset time, duration time, and discharge time were recorded. Physicians, anesthetists, and patients were surveyed to assess their satisfaction. Results Systolic pressure and diastolic pressure decreased significantly after the procedure in the propofol group (P<0.001). The average heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (P<0.05). No periods of desaturation (SpO2 <95%) were observed in either group. The onset time was earlier in the etomidate group (P=0.00). All adverse events, with the exception of myoclonus, were greater in the propofol group, and physician and patient satisfaction in both groups was similar. Conclusions Etomidate-remifentanil administration for sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and less adverse events in older patients.
RECH MA,BENNETTS,CHANEYW,et al.Risk factors for mortality in septic patients who received etomidate[J].,2015,33(10):1340-1343.
ABSTRACT To characterize risk factors for mortality in septic patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation. This study was a retrospective cohort conducted at a large, tertiary, urban, academic medical center that included patients with severe sepsis or septic shock who received etomidate between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012. A total of 169 patients were included with similar baseline characteristics. There were more men in the nonsurvivor group than in the survivor group (67.1% vs 50.6%, P = .03). Septic shock occurred in 91.5% of nonsurvivors and 69% of survivors (P < .01). Nonsurvivors also had a higher initial lactate of (5.1 ± 4.3 mmol/L vs 3.6 ± 3.4 mmol/L, P = .02) and more vasopressor therapy (91.5% vs 69%, P < .01), required a higher number of vasopressors (2.2 ± 1.1 vs 1.3 ± 1, P < .01), and were administered hydrocortisone (53.7% vs 34.5%, P = .01). Abdominal source of sepsis (P = .048) and number of vasopressors (P = .01) were predictive of 30-day mortality. An alternative sedative induction agent may be considered for use in rapid sequence intubation in patients on multiple vasopressors or with abdominal source of infection. Copyright 08 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BANIHASHEMN,ALIJANPOURE,BASIRATM,et al.Sedation with etomidate-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in colonoscopies:A prospective randomized study[J].,2015,6(1):15-19.
The combination of propofol-fentanyl for sedation during colonoscopy is characterized by high prevalence of side effects. Etomidate-fentanyl provides fewer hemodynamic and respiratory complications. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-fentanyl and etomidate-fentanyl for conscious sedation in elective colonoscopy. This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 90 patients aged between 18- 55 years old who were candidates for elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with fentanyl plus propofol or etomidate. Two minutes after injecting 1 micro/kg of fentanyl, the patients received 0.5mg/kg propofol by infusion (25 08/kg/min) or 0.1 mg/kg etmoidate (15 08/kg/min). Pulse rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and saturation of peripheral oxygen (SPO2) were monitored. In addition, the patient and colonoscopist satisfaction, the recovery time, sedation and pain score in both groups were assessed. Sedation score in propofol group was higher. Pain score as well as the physician and patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the two study groups. Hemodynamic changes and arterial saturation were the same in both groups. The duration of recovery was 1.27±0.82 minutes in the etomidate group; versus 2.57±2.46 minutes in the propofol group (P=0.001). Recovery time in the etmoid group was 2.68±3.14 minutes and in the propofol group was 5.53±4.67 minutes (p=0.001). The combination of fentanyl and etomidate provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with fentanyl and propofol with the advantage of significantly faster recovery time, in the outpatient setting.
UPADHYES,CYGANIK O.Is single-dose etomidate induction safe in emergency intubation of critically ill patients[J].,2015,11(15):392-398.
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.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.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.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.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.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).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.
DUY,CHEN YJ,HEB.The effects of single-dose etomi-date versus propofol on cortisol levels in pediatric patients undergoing urologic surgery:a randomized controlled trial[J].,2015,121(6):1580-1585.
The effects of general anesthetics on the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis and cortisol release in children are poorly characterized. Normal, daily fluctuation of cortisol levels complicates assessment of these effects. This study aimed to characterize the effects of etomidate compared with propofol on the normal cortisol secretory pattern in children undergoing urologic surgery by using a salivary cortisol assay.In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we recruited 80 children aged 3 to 12 years assigned ASA physical status I who were scheduled for urologic surgery and 11 healthy child volunteers. Before surgery, cortisol levels of the 11 volunteers and 15 study patients were tested from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM every hour for 1 day. The study patients were then randomly allocated into an etomidate group and a propofol group, receiving etomidate 0.3 mg/kg (n = 38) or propofol 2 mg/kg (n = 39) and midazolam 0.1 mg/kg, fentanyl 2 渭g/kg, and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg for induction, respectively. The cortisol levels of the patients were assessed continuously for 2 days postoperatively.The cortisol levels of the etomidate group were continuously and significantly lower than those of the propofol group from the time of discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (approximately 2:00 PM) until 8:00 AM the next morning (all P 0.070).Compared with propofol, a single induction dose of etomidate suppressed postoperative cortisol levels in healthy children undergoing urologic surgery. This suppression lasted approximately 24 hours and was not associated with any changes in clinical outcomes.
SINGH PM,ARORAS,BORLEA,et al.Evaluation of etomidate for seizure duration in electroconvulsive therapy:a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J].,2015,31(4):213-225.
MENG XL,WANG LW,ZHAOW,et al.Effects of different etomidate doses on intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring[J].,2015,184(4):799-803.
Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) are widely used for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. Although many general anesthetics inhibit SSEPs, etomidate has been reported to boost SSEPs. This clinical study aimed to test whether etomidate doses less than 0.302mg/kg amplify SSEP monitoring.Patients were divided into four groups: A, B, C, and D. Etomidate doses of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.302mg/kg were infused into patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively, after baseline SSEPs were obtained. Group D patients were infused with saline. In the subsequent 1502min, the amplitudes and latencies of SSEPs were recorded and compared.Etomidate exhibited amplification effects on SSEPs, and this effect increased with dose escalation. The amplitude changes in groups A, B, and C were significantly different (P02=020.002, P02=020.000, and P02=020.000, respectively) from that of group D. The amplitude change was largest in group C and significantly greater than those in groups A and B (P02=020.006, P02=020.000). Latency was not significantly affected (P02<020.05) by etomidate.Small doses of etomidate that were less than 0.302mg/kg had dose-related amplification effects on SSEP monitoring.
The effects of single-dose etomi-date versus propofol on cortisol levels in pediatric patients undergoing urologic surgery:a randomized controlled trial