Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):774-83. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318274190d.
Retrospective analyses of several trials suggest etomidate may be unsafe for intubation in patients with sepsis. We evaluated the association of etomidate and mortality in a large cohort of septic patients to determine if single-dose etomidate was associated with increased in-hospital mortality.
Retrospective cohort study at the Philips eICU Research Institute ICU clinical database.
None.
Among 741,036 patients monitored from 2008 through 2010, we identified 2,014 adults intubated in the ICU 4-96 hrs after admission, having clinical criteria consistent with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In all, 1,102 patients received etomidate and 912 received other induction agents for intubation.
The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, but we also evaluated demographic and clinical factors, severity of illness, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator days, and vasopressor days. Competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for primary outcomes. Demographics and illness severity were similar between the groups. Hospital mortality was similar between the groups (37.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.77), as were ICU mortality (30.1% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.99), ICU length of stay (8.7 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.66), and hospital length of stay (15.2 vs. 14.6 days, p = 0.31). More patients in the etomidate group received steroids before and after intubation (52.9% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), but vasopressor use and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar. No regression model showed an independent association of etomidate with mortality, shock, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU or hospital length of stay, or vasopressor use. A hospital mortality model limited to only patients with septic shock (n = 650) also showed no association of etomidate and hospital mortality.
In a mixed-diagnosis group of critically ill patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, single-dose etomidate administration for intubation in the ICU was not associated with higher mortality or other adverse clinical outcomes.
对几项试验的回顾性分析表明,依托咪酯可能对脓毒症患者的插管不安全。我们评估了大样本脓毒症患者中依托咪酯与死亡率的相关性,以确定单次剂量依托咪酯是否与住院死亡率增加有关。
在飞利浦 eICU 研究研究所 ICU 临床数据库进行回顾性队列研究。
无。
在 2008 年至 2010 年监测的 741036 名患者中,我们确定了 2014 名成人在入院后 4-96 小时内进行 ICU 插管,他们具有符合脓毒症、严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克的临床标准。共有 1102 名患者接受依托咪酯,912 名患者接受其他诱导剂进行插管。
主要终点是住院死亡率,但我们还评估了人口统计学和临床因素、疾病严重程度、ICU 死亡率、ICU 住院时间、住院时间、呼吸机天数和血管加压素天数。使用竞争风险 Cox 比例风险回归模型进行主要结果分析。两组的人口统计学和疾病严重程度相似。两组的住院死亡率相似(37.2% vs. 37.8%,p = 0.77),ICU 死亡率相似(30.1% vs. 30.2%,p = 0.99),ICU 住院时间相似(8.7 天 vs. 8.9 天,p = 0.66),住院时间相似(15.2 天 vs. 14.6 天,p = 0.31)。依托咪酯组在插管前后接受类固醇治疗的患者更多(52.9% vs. 44.5%,p < 0.001),但血管加压素的使用和机械通气的持续时间相似。没有回归模型显示依托咪酯与死亡率、休克、机械通气持续时间、ICU 或住院时间或血管加压素使用之间存在独立关联。一个仅限于脓毒性休克患者(n = 650)的医院死亡率模型也没有显示依托咪酯与医院死亡率之间存在关联。
在一组混合诊断的危重病患者中,患有脓毒症、严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克,单次剂量依托咪酯用于 ICU 插管与死亡率或其他不良临床结局无关。