Etomidate Use Is Associated With Less Hypotension Than Ketamine for Emergency Department Sepsis Intubations: A NEAR Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 1) to describe the current use of etomidate and other induction agents in patients with sepsis and 2) to compare adverse events between etomidate and ketamine in sepsis. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of the prospective National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) data set. Descriptive statistics were used to report the distribution of induction agents used in patients with sepsis. Adverse events were compared using bivariate analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using a propensity score-adjusted analysis of etomidate versus ketamine. RESULTS: A total of 531 patients were intubated for sepsis, and the majority (71%) were intubated with etomidate as the initial induction agent. Etomidate was less frequently used in sepsis patients than nonsepsis patients (71% vs. 85%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4 to 0.5). Sepsis patients had a greater risk of adverse events, and vasopressor therapy was required for 25% of patients after intubation. Postprocedure hypotension was higher between those intubated for sepsis with ketamine versus etomidate (74% vs. 50%, OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.9 to 4.5). After confounding by indication in the propensity score-adjusted analysis was accounted for, ketamine was associated with more postprocedure hypotension (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.1 to 6.7). No difference in emergency department deaths was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Etomidate is used less frequently in sepsis patients than nonsepsis patients, with ketamine being the most frequently used alternative. Ketamine was associated with more postprocedural hypotension than etomidate. Future clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal induction agent in patients with sepsis.

Subclavian revascularization in the age of thoracic endovascular aortic repair and comparison of outcomes in patients with occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Open surgical revascularization for subclavian artery occlusive disease (OD) has largely been supplanted by endovascular treatment despite the excellent long-term patency of bypass. The indications for carotid-subclavian bypass (C-SBP) and subclavian transposition (ST) have been recently expanded with the widespread application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), primarily to augment proximal landing zones or treat endovascular failures. This study was performed to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing C-SBP/ST in the context of contemporary endovascular therapies and evolving indications. METHODS: A prospective database including all procedures performed at a single institution from 2002 to 2012 was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent subclavian revascularization for TEVAR or OD indications. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patency was determined by computed tomography angiography in the TEVAR group. Noninvasive studies were used for the OD patients. Life-table methods were used to estimate patency, reintervention, and survival. RESULTS: Of 139 procedures identified, 101 were performed for TEVAR and 38 for OD. All TEVAR patients underwent C-SBP/ST to augment landing zones (49% preoperative; 41% intraoperative), treat arm ischemia (8% postoperative), or for internal mammary artery salvage (2%). OD patients had a variety of indications, including failed stent/arm fatigue, 49%; asymptomatic >80% internal carotid stenosis with concurrent subclavian occlusion, 18%; symptomatic cerebrovascular OD, 13%; redo bypass, 8%; and coronary-subclavian steal, 5%. Differences in postoperative stroke and death, primary patency, or freedom from reintervention were not significant. The 30-day postoperative stroke, death, and combined stroke/death rates were, respectively, 10.8%, 5.8%, and 13.7% for the entire cohort; 8.9%, 7.1%, and 12.9% in TEVAR patients; and 15.8%, 2.6%, and 15.8% in OD patients. The 1- and 3-year primary patencies were, respectively, 94% and 94% for TEVAR and 93% and 73% for OD patients. Survival was similar between the groups, with an estimated survival rate of 88% at 1 year and 76% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke risk in this contemporary series of C-SBP/ST performed for TEVAR and OD indications may be higher than previously reported in historical series. In TEVAR patients, this may be attributed to procedural complexity of the TEVAR in patients requiring subclavian revascularization. In OD patients, this is likely due to the changing patient population that requires more frequent concomitant carotid interventions. Despite the short-term morbidity, excellent bypass durability and equivalent long-term patient survival can be anticipated.