RESUMO
Because modern surgical and medical care have advanced, patients increasingly present for procedural and surgical intervention with life-limiting diagnoses and/or advanced care goals such as "do not resuscitate." Anesthesiologists now care for these patients across the complete perioperative setting and frequently find themselves at the crossroads of these mounting pressures. As the boundaries and capabilities of anesthetic care and critical care anesthesiology expand so too do the specialty's needs for support in ethical decision-making. Herein, we review the role of the ethics consultation in anesthesia practice and special ethic issues encountered by the anesthesiologist.
Assuntos
Anestesia , Anestesiologia , Consultoria Ética , Humanos , Anestesia/ética , Anestesia/métodos , Anestesiologia/ética , Anestesiologistas/éticaAssuntos
Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Humanos , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas/normas , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/normas , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/métodos , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/instrumentação , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) have a high mortality. However, little is known regarding the impact of induction agents, used prior to IMV, on clinical outcomes in this population. We assessed for the association between induction agent and mortality in patients with AMI requiring IMV. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes between those receiving propofol compared to etomidate for induction among adults with AMI between October 2015 and December 2019 using the Vizient® Clinical Data Base, a multicenter, US national database. We used inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) to assess for the association between induction agent and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 5,147 patients, 1,386 (26.9%) of received propofol and 3,761 (73.1%) received etomidate for IMV induction. The mean (SD) age was 66.1 (12.4) years, 33.0% were women, and 51.6% and 39.8% presented with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, respectively. Patients in the propofol group were more likely to require preintubation vasoactive medication and mechanical circulatory support (both, P < .05). Utilization of propofol was associated with lower mortality compared to etomidate (32.3% vs 36.1%, P = .01). After propensity weighting, propofol use remained associated with lower mortality (weighted mean difference -4.7%; 95% confidence interval: -7.6% to -1.8%, P = .002). Total cost, ventilator days, and length of stay were higher in the propofol group (all, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Induction with propofol, compared with etomidate, was associated with lower mortality for patients with AMI requiring IMV. Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal induction agent for this critically ill patient population.