Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.
J Clin Med
; 10(13)2021 Jun 29.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-34209919
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol.METHODS:
This was a retrospective before-after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents.RESULTS:
One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate 11.5% vs. propofol 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate 18.6% vs. propofol 14.0%, p = 0.031).CONCLUSION:
Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Risk_factors_studies
Idioma:
En
Revista:
J Clin Med
Ano de publicação:
2021
Tipo de documento:
Article