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.

Body mass index and outcomes of in-hospital ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation arrest.

BACKGROUND: Due to higher transthoracic impedance, obese patients may be less likely to be successfully defibrillated from ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) arrest. However, the association between patient body mass index (BMI), defibrillation success, and survival outcomes of VT/VF arrest are poorly understood. METHODS: We evaluated 7110 patients with in-hospital VT/VF arrest at 286 hospitals within the Get With The Guidelines(®)-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) Multicenter Observational Registry between 2006 and 2012. Patients were categorized as underweight (BMI<18.5kg/m(2)), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9kg/m(2)), over-weight (BMI 25.0-29.9kg/m(2)), obese (BMI 30.0-34.9kg/m(2)), and extremely obese (BMI≥35.0kg/m(2)). Using generalized linear mixed regression, we determined the risk-adjusted relationship between BMI and patient outcomes while accounting for clustering by hospitals. The primary outcome was successful first shock defibrillation (a post-shock rhythm other than VT/VF) with secondary outcomes of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to 24h, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Among adult patients suffering VT/VF arrest, 304 (4.3%) were underweight, 2061 (29.0%) were normal weight, 2139 (30.1%) were overweight, and 2606 (36.6%) were obese or extremely obese. In a risk-adjusted analysis, we observed no interaction between BMI and energy level for the successful termination of VT/VF with first shock. Furthermore, the risk-adjusted likelihood of successful first shock termination of VT/VF did not differ significantly across BMI categories. Finally, when compared to overweight patients, obese patients had similar risk-adjusted likelihood of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio 0.786, 95% confidence interval 0.593-1.043). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the likelihood of successful defibrillation with the first shock attempt among different BMI categories.

Sedation and anesthesia care for ophthalmologic surgery during local/regional anesthesia.

Anesthesia care for the patients undergoing ophthalmologic surgical procedures during local/regional anesthesia balances goals of patient comfort with safety and an optimal outcome in a highly cost-conscious environment. This article discusses current practices and trends in anesthesia care with respect to sedation for eye surgery during local/regional anesthesia. Although there is no evidence that one local/regional anesthesia technique or sedation analgesia regimen is superior to the others, this review highlights important differences between these varied approaches. The type of block used for the ophthalmologic surgery alters the sedation requirements. Changes in surgical techniques have increased the popularity of topical anesthesia, which reduces the need for sedation analgesia and may lessen the need for an anesthesia practitioner. The involvement of an anesthesia practitioner in eye surgery varies from facility to facility based on costs, anesthesiologist availability, and local standards. Anesthesia care choices are often made based on surgeon skill and anesthesiologist comfort, as well as the expectations and needs of the patient.

Consequences of inadequate postoperative pain relief and chronic persistent postoperative pain.

Inadequately controlled pain has undesirable physiologic and psychologic consequences such as increased postoperative morbidity, delayed recovery, a delayed return to normal daily living, and reduced patient satisfaction. Importantly, the lack of adequate postoperative pain treatment may lead to persistent pain after surgery, which is often overlooked. Overall, inadequate pain management increases the use of health care resources and health care costs. This article reviews the physiologic and psychologic consequences of inadequately treated pain, with an emphasis on chronic persistent postoperative pain.

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.