Suppr超能文献

依托咪酯与氯胺酮单次诱导用于急诊脓毒症患者插管的临床结局:一项随机对照试验。

Clinical outcomes after a single induction dose of etomidate versus ketamine for emergency department sepsis intubation: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, 99/209 Phahon Yothin Road, Klong Luang District, Pathum Thani, 12120, Thailand.

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2023 Apr 19;13(1):6362. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33679-x.

Abstract

Patients with sepsis often require emergency intubation. In emergency departments (EDs), rapid-sequence intubation with a single-dose induction agent is standard practice, but the best choice of induction agent in sepsis remains controversial. We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial in the ED. We included septic patients who were aged at least 18 years and required sedation for emergency intubation. Patients were randomly assigned by a blocked randomization to receive 0.2-0.3 mg/kg of etomidate or 1-2 mg/kg of ketamine for intubation. The objectives were to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events after intubation between etomidate and ketamine. Two hundred and sixty septic patients were enrolled; 130 patients/drug arm whose baseline characteristics were well balanced at baseline. In the etomidate group, 105 patients (80.8%) were alive at 28 days, compared with 95 patients (73.1%) in the ketamine group (risk difference [RD], 7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 2.5 to 17.9%; P = 0.092). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived at 24 h (91.5% vs. 96.2%; P = 0.097) and survived at 7 days (87.7% vs. 87.7%; P = 0.574). A significantly higher proportion of the etomidate group needed a vasopressor within 24 h after intubation: 43.9% vs. 17.7%, RD, 26.2% (95% CI, 15.4 to 36.9%; P < 0.001). In conclusion, there were no differences in early and late survival rates between etomidate and ketamine. However, etomidate was associated with higher risks of early vasopressor use after intubation. Trial registration: The trial protocol was registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (identification number: TCTR20210213001). Registered 13 February 2021-Retrospectively registered, https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/export/pdf/TCTR20210213001 .

摘要

患者常需要在急诊进行紧急插管。在急诊室(ED),快速序贯诱导和单次剂量的诱导剂是标准的做法,但在脓毒症中,最佳的诱导剂选择仍存在争议。我们在 ED 进行了一项随机、对照、单盲试验。我们纳入了年龄至少 18 岁且需要镇静进行紧急插管的脓毒症患者。患者按区组随机分配接受 0.2-0.3mg/kg 依托咪酯或 1-2mg/kg 氯胺酮进行插管。目的是比较依托咪酯和氯胺酮插管后生存结果和不良事件。纳入了 260 例脓毒症患者;每组 130 例患者,两组的基线特征在基线时是均衡的。在依托咪酯组中,28 天时 105 例(80.8%)患者存活,而氯胺酮组中 95 例(73.1%)患者存活(风险差异[RD],7.7%;95%置信区间[CI],-2.5 至 17.9%;P=0.092)。24 小时(91.5% vs. 96.2%;P=0.097)和 7 天(87.7% vs. 87.7%;P=0.574)时存活的患者比例无显著差异。插管后 24 小时内,依托咪酯组需要升压药的比例明显更高:43.9% vs. 17.7%,RD 为 26.2%(95%CI,15.4 至 36.9%;P<0.001)。结论:依托咪酯和氯胺酮在早期和晚期生存率方面没有差异。然而,依托咪酯与插管后早期使用升压药的风险增加有关。试验注册:试验方案在泰国临床试验注册中心(注册号:TCTR20210213001)注册。2021 年 2 月 13 日注册-回顾性注册,https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/export/pdf/TCTR20210213001。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0a38/10115773/61d4f0def2df/41598_2023_33679_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验