Etomidate versus ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Etomidate and ketamine are hemodynamically stable induction agents often used to sedate critically ill patients during emergency endotracheal intubation. In 2015, quality improvement data from our hospital suggested a survival benefit at Day 7 from avoidance of etomidate in critically ill patients during emergency intubation. In this clinical trial, we hypothesized that randomization to ketamine instead of etomidate would be associated with Day 7 survival after emergency endotracheal intubation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel assignment, single-center clinical trial performed by an anesthesiology-based Airway Team under emergent circumstances at one high-volume medical center in the United States. 801 critically ill patients requiring emergency intubation were randomly assigned 1:1 by computer-generated, pre-randomized sealed envelopes to receive etomidate (0.2-0.3 mg/kg, n = 400) or ketamine (1-2 mg/kg, n = 401) for sedation prior to intubation. The pre-specified primary endpoint of the trial was Day 7 survival. Secondary endpoints included Day 28 survival. RESULTS: Of the 801 enrolled patients, 396 were analyzed in the etomidate arm, and 395 in the ketamine arm. Day 7 survival was significantly lower in the etomidate arm than in the ketamine arm (77.3% versus 85.1%, difference - 7.8, 95% confidence interval - 13, - 2.4, p = 0.005). Day 28 survival rates for the two groups were not significantly different (etomidate 64.1%, ketamine 66.8%, difference - 2.7, 95% confidence interval - 9.3, 3.9, p = 0.294). CONCLUSION: While the primary outcome of Day 7 survival was greater in patients randomized to ketamine, there was no significant difference in survival by Day 28.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: A Review of the Evidence, Theoretical Benefits, and Alternative Titration Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To review the theoretical benefits of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), summarize the evidence for its use in clinical practice, and discuss different titration strategies. DATA SOURCE: Published randomized controlled trials in humans, observational human studies, animal studies, review articles, ventilator textbooks, and editorials. DATA SUMMARY: Airway pressure release ventilation optimizes alveolar recruitment, reduces airway pressures, allows for spontaneous breathing, and offers many hemodynamic benefits. Despite these physiologic advantages, there are inconsistent data to support the use of APRV over other modes of ventilation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the application of APRV among providers and a shortage of information describing initiation and titration strategies. To date, no direct comparison studies of APRV strategies have been performed. This review describes 2 common management approaches that bedside providers can use to optimally tailor APRV to their patients. CONCLUSION: Airway pressure release ventilation remains a form of mechanical ventilation primarily used for refractory hypoxemia. It offers unique physiological advantages over other ventilatory modes, and providers must be familiar with different titration methods. Given its inconsistent outcome data and heterogeneous use in practice, future trials should directly compare APRV strategies to determine the optimal management approach.