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.

Risks and complications of neuraxial anesthesia and the use of anticoagulation in the surgical patient.

Recognition of the risk of thromboembolic phenomena to patients in the postsurgical period has resulted in the practice of administering prophylactic anticoagulant agents to those patients who are at high risk for this complication. Institution of a perioperative anticoagulant or antithrombotic protocol needs to be considered when a regional anesthetic is proposed as part of, or as the total, anesthetic management of the patient. This article reviews current data on the risks involved in the use of neuraxial regional anesthesia in the care of surgical patients in whom prophylactic thromboembolic anticoagulant therapy is planned. Guidelines are established to help the physician minimize the risks of a neuraxial hematoma forming, monitor the patient for this complication, and optimally treat him or her if a hematoma were to occur.