Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumuqi, Xinjiang, China.
JAMA Surg. 2022 Oct 1;157(10):888-895. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.3338.
Older patients may benefit from the hemodynamic stability of etomidate for general anesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether the potential for adrenocortical suppression with etomidate may increase morbidity.
To test the primary hypothesis that etomidate vs propofol for anesthesia does not increase in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (Etomidate vs Propofol for In-hospital Complications [EPIC]) was conducted between August 15, 2017, and November 20, 2020, at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Participants were aged 65 to 80 years and were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either etomidate or propofol for general anesthesia by target-controlled infusion.
Primary outcome was a composite of major in-hospital postoperative complications (with a noninferiority margin of 3%). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic measurements; postoperative adrenocortical hormone levels; self-reported postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting; and mortality at postoperative months 6 and 12.
A total of 1944 participants were randomized, of whom 1917 (98.6%) completed the trial. Patients were randomized to the etomidate group (n = 967; mean [SD] age, 70.3 [4.0] years; 578 men [59.8%]) or propofol group (n = 950; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [4.2] years; 533 men [56.1%]). The primary end point occurred in 90 of 967 patients (9.3%) in the etomidate group and 83 of 950 patients (8.7%) in the propofol group, which met the noninferiority criterion (risk difference [RD], 0.6%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 2.7%; P = .66). In the etomidate group, mean (SD) cortisol levels were lower at the end of surgery (4.8 [2.7] μg/dL vs 6.1 [3.4] μg/dL; P < .001), and mean (SD) aldosterone levels were lower at the end of surgery (0.13 [0.05] ng/dL vs 0.15 [0.07] ng/dL; P = .02) and on postoperative day 1 (0.14 [0.04] ng/dL vs 0.16 [0.06] ng/dL; P = .001) compared with the propofol group. No difference in mortality was observed between the etomidate and propofol groups at postoperative month 6 (2.2% vs 3.0%; RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%) and 12 (3.3% vs 3.9%; RD, -0.6%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 1.0%). More patients had pneumonia in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (2.0% vs 0.3%; RD, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 2.8%; P = .001). Results were consistent in the per-protocol population.
Results of this trial showed that, compared with propofol, etomidate anesthesia did not increase overall major in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients, although it induced transient adrenocortical suppression.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02910206.
对于老年患者,依托咪酯的全身麻醉可能具有血流动力学稳定性的优势。然而,依托咪酯是否可能增加肾上腺皮质抑制导致发病率增加仍然不确定。
检验主要假设,即依托咪酯与丙泊酚用于老年患者腹部手术后的麻醉相比,不会增加住院期间的发病率。
设计、地点和参与者:这项多中心、平行组、非劣效性随机临床试验(依托咪酯与丙泊酚用于院内并发症[EPIC])于 2017 年 8 月 15 日至 2020 年 11 月 20 日在中国 22 家三级医院进行。参与者年龄在 65 至 80 岁之间,计划接受择期腹部手术。患者和结局评估者对分组情况不知情。数据分析遵循改良意向治疗原则。
患者通过靶控输注被随机分为依托咪酯或丙泊酚组,接受全身麻醉。
主要结局是主要术后院内并发症的复合指标(非劣效性边界为 3%)。次要结局包括术中血流动力学测量;术后肾上腺皮质激素水平;术后自我报告的疼痛、恶心和呕吐;以及术后 6 个月和 12 个月的死亡率。
共有 1944 名患者被随机分组,其中 1917 名(98.6%)完成了试验。患者被随机分配至依托咪酯组(n = 967;平均[SD]年龄,70.3[4.0]岁;578 名男性[59.8%])或丙泊酚组(n = 950;平均[SD]年龄,70.6[4.2]岁;533 名男性[56.1%])。在依托咪酯组中,967 名患者中有 90 名(9.3%)发生主要终点事件,在丙泊酚组中,950 名患者中有 83 名(8.7%)发生主要终点事件,符合非劣效性标准(风险差异[RD],0.6%;95%CI,-1.6%至 2.7%;P = .66)。在依托咪酯组中,手术结束时皮质醇水平(4.8[2.7]μg/dL 比 6.1[3.4]μg/dL;P < .001)和醛固酮水平(0.13[0.05]ng/dL 比 0.15[0.07]ng/dL;P = .02)均较低,术后第 1 天(0.14[0.04]ng/dL 比 0.16[0.06]ng/dL;P = .001)也较低,而丙泊酚组则较低。依托咪酯组和丙泊酚组在术后 6 个月(2.2%比 3.0%;RD,-0.8%;95%CI,-2.2%至 0.7%)和 12 个月(3.3%比 3.9%;RD,-0.6%;95%CI,-2.3%至 1.0%)的死亡率之间没有差异。依托咪酯组肺炎患者比例高于丙泊酚组(2.0%比 0.3%;RD,1.7%;95%CI,0.7%至 2.8%;P = .001)。结果在符合方案人群中一致。
该试验结果表明,与丙泊酚相比,依托咪酯麻醉不会增加老年患者腹部手术后的总体主要住院发病率,尽管它会引起短暂的肾上腺皮质抑制。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02910206。