Etomidate vs Ketamine-Propofol for Induction of Anesthesia in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Etomidate has minimal cardiovascular depressant effects at the cost of endogenous cortisol production suppression, whereas propofol has vasodilatory and myocardial depressant properties, which may be poorly tolerated in the cardiac surgical population. To offset the undesirable effects of propofol, ketamine can be co-administered to harness its cardiac stimulatory properties. Though etomidate is a more cardio-stable induction agent than propofol, its superiority over the combination of propofol and ketamine-colloquially known as "ketofol"-remains controversial. Methods: United States National Library of Medicine Database (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) were searched for randomized controlled trials published since 2010 comparing etomidate and ketofol relative to propofol alone for induction of general anesthesia for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Key data collected included post-induction nadir mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and serum cortisol levels at 24 hours postoperatively. Variables were compared by calculating a weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Results: This analysis included 15 studies (1125 patients). Anesthetic induction with etomidate was associated with a higher nadir MAP and SVR compared to ketofol during the peri-induction period by WMD 4.77 mmHg [95% CI 0.31, 9.23, P = 0.04] and 42.22 dynes/cm5 [95% CI 0.49-83.94, P = 0.05]. However, there was no difference in the frequency of needed boluses of vasopressors or fluids for peri-induction hypotension. Conclusions: Though etomidate appears to provide a superior hemodynamic profile compared to ketofol, both agents require similar degrees of clinical response to hypotension during the induction of CABG surgery patients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 20 intravenous pharmaceutical intervention for prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical interventions to prevent etomidate-induced myoclonus (EIM), providing the optimal intervention for clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang database, and SinoMed database were searched from the inception to sixth May 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous pharmaceutical interventions to prevent EIM with placebo, no intervention, or another pharmaceutical intervention.

Results

Forty-eight RCTs involving 4,768 participants randomly assigned to 20 intravenous pharmaceutical interventions and normal saline were included. Granisetron (odds ratio [OR]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00 to 0.06; one study, moderate certainty) and oxycodone (OR: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.05; three studies, low certainty) was found to be the most effective intervention in reducing the risk of EIM and ranked highest in terms of surface under the cumulative ranking values (94.4% and 89.7% probability), followed by sufentanil (76.5% probability) and remifentanil (74.8% probability). Further subgroup analysis of EIM at mild, moderate-to-severe levels highlighted granisetron and oxycodone as the favorable interventions for reducing EIM. For safety outcomes, the synthesized results indicated that opioids were associated with a higher risk of adverse events (AEs), while no severe AEs were observed.

Conclusion

Moderate-to-low certainty evidence indicated that granisetron and oxycodone may represent the optimal intervention for reducing the risk of overall and moderate-to-severe EIM with a reasonable safety profile, providing the potential interventions for clinical practice.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=291275.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of etomidate with other anesthesia induction drugs for patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Etomidate is commonly used to induce anesthesia in cardiac surgery patients due to its favorable cardiovascular profile. Sedative-hypnotic effects are mediated by gammaaminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor complexes in the central nervous system. There are numerous studies in which etomidate and other drugs are compared in terms of their clinical outcomes. The relative efficacy and safety of etomidate, however, remains inconclusive. In this study, we performed a systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of etomidate, on patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with respect to patient outcome and adverse events.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of all existing clinical trials exploring the safety and efficacy of etomidate in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared etomidate with other drugs during induction in adult cardiac surgery assessing hemodynamic parameters and clinical outcomes were included, while studies involving non-cardiac or pediatric surgery and those lacking relevant outcome data were excluded. Primary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included duration of tracheal intubation, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, duration of hospital stay, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and other hemodynamic parameters, vasopressor requirements after induction and intubation, cortisol levels, and incidence of myoclonus.

Results

Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 1162 patients were included. Etomidate did not affect the all-cause 30-day mortality of patients undergoing cardiac surgery compared to comparator drugs (RR, 0.96; 95 % CI, 0.26 to 3.49; P = 0.95). There were no significant differences in the duration of tracheal intubation (MD, -0.08 h; 95 % CI, -1.96 to 1.81; P = 0.94), the duration of ICU stay (MD, -2.07 h; 95 % CI, -8.09 to 3.96; P = 0.50) or the duration of hospital stay (MD, -0.62 d; 95 % CI, -2.25 to 1.00; P = 0.45) when etomidate was compared to comparator drugs. Patients receiving etomidate demonstrated a more stable hemodynamic profile after induction and intubation compared to those receiving comparator drugs. The requirement of a vasopressor after induction and intubation was significantly reduced with etomidate compared with those with comparator drugs (RR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.25 to 0.56; P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

This systematic meta-analysis found a significant heterogeneity among included studies. In addition, most studies focused only on the hemodynamic profile of etomidate. Thus, efficacy and safety of etomidate could not be answered within this context. Nevertheless, for patients undergoing cardiac surgery, etomidate seems to offer a minimal beneficial cardiovascular profile in comparison with other agents during induction and intubation. However, improved hemodynamics did not improve clinical outcomes as Etomidate did not affect mortality, duration of tracheal intubation, the length of stay in ICU and hospital. Finally, infectious side effects as one important trigger for increased mortality in ICU patients due to the use of Etomidate could not be analyzed as data were mostly missing.

Sedation with a 1:1 mixture of etomidate and propofol for gastroscopy in hypertensive elderly patients

We hypothesized that the combined use of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in elderly hypertensive patients could reduce adverse reactions while providing ideal sedation. To validate our hypothesis, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. A total of 360 elderly hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy at our hospital were enrolled in the study, of whom 328 completed the trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the propofol group (group P), the etomidate group (group E), or the propofol-etomidate combination group (mixed at a ratio of 1:1, group PE). We collected and analyzed the cardiopulmonary effects and side effects in each group. Regardless of the sedation drug used, the systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate of involved patients were significantly affected. Oxygen desaturation and injection pain were more common in group P compared to groups E (33.6% vs. 14.8%, 31.8% vs. 2.7%, both P < 0.01) and group PE (33.6% vs. 13.6%, 31.8% vs. 6.4%, both P < 0.01). The incidence of myoclonus in the PE group was lower than that in the E group (10.9% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.01). Our results indeed demonstrated that the combined use of etomidate and propofol appeared to maintain cardiopulmonary stability with minimal side effects in older hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy, which further implied that this sedation strategy could be a safe and pain-free option for managing patients undergoing gastroscopy, particularly those at a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Effect of remimazolam tosilate versus etomidate on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of cardiac disease are prone to develop cardiovascular adverse events such as hypotension, hypertension, and tachycardia during anesthesia induction. Therefore, hemodynamic stability is one of the most important concerns for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Remimazolam tosilate is a new, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine agent, with the advantages of rapid onset, rapid offset, and minimal cardiorespiratory depression. We aim to compare the effect of remimazolam tosilate and etomidate on hemodynamics during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single-center trial to compare the effect of remimazolam tosilate and etomidate on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery. One hundred seventeen patients undergoing selective valve replacement surgery between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, will be enrolled and randomly allocated into one of three groups: low-dose remimazolam group (Group LR), high-dose remimazolam group (Group HR), or etomidate group (Group E). The primary outcome is hemodynamic fluctuations during anesthesia induction (the difference between mean arterial pressure [MAP] to baseline, ▴MAP; and the difference between maximum or minimum heart rate [HR] and baseline, ▴HR). Secondary outcomes include the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events (hypotension, severe bradycardia, hypertension, tachycardia, and arrhythmia), the cumulative doses of vasoactive drugs used per patient, incidence and degree of injection pain and myoclonus, blood glucose values, and vital signs at different time points.

DISCUSSION

This research will determine the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam tosilate induction on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org .cn identifier ChiCTR2100052535 . Registered on 17th Dec 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ).

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study

Background: Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol. Methods: This was a retrospective before–after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents. Results: One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate: 18.6% vs. propofol: 14.0%, p = 0.031). Conclusion: Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.

CON: Propofol Is Better Than Etomidate for Induction in Cardiac Surgical Patients

There is an ongoing debate regarding the choice of ideal induction agent between propofol and etomidate for cardiac surgical patients. Etomidate appears to be better than propofol as the induction agent due to the superior hemodynamic stability. However, the adrenal suppression due to etomidate can pose challenges to the anesthesiologist in certain clinical situations.

Anesthetic Induction With Etomidate in Cardiac Surgical Patients: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review the effects of etomidate (ETM) during anesthetic induction on patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Operating room.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

ETM or control drugs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and EMBASE were searched through August 31, 2020. Primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles and stress responses. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality, and postoperative recovery. For continuous/dichotomous variables, treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A database search yielded 18 randomized controlled trials including 1,241 patients. The present meta-analysis demonstrated that ETM-anesthetized patients had lower heart rates (WMD, -3.31; 95% CI -5.43 to -1.19; p = 0.002), higher blood pressures (systolic blood pressure: WMD, 12.02; 95% CI 6.24 to 17.80; p < 0.0001; diastolic blood pressure: WMD, 5.23; 95% CI 2.39 to 8.08; p = 0.0003; mean arterial pressure (MAP): WMD, 8.64; 95% CI 5.85 to 11.43; p < 0.00001), less requirement for vasopressor (OR, 0.26; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.44; p < 0.00001), and more nitroglycerin usage (OR, 14.89; 95% CI 4.92 to 45.08; p < 0.00001) during anesthetic induction. Current meta-analysis also demonstrated that single-dose ETM lowered cortisol levels transiently and did not have a significant effect on endogenous norepinephrine and epinephrine levels and was not associated with increased postoperative inotrope and/or vasopressor requirement. Additionally, the meta-analysis suggested that ETM anesthesia was associated with neither increased mortality nor morbidity, except a higher incidence of transient adrenal insufficiency in ETM recipients.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis suggested that single-dose ETM during anesthetic induction could be associated with more stable hemodynamics, transient and reversible lower cortisol levels, and a higher adrenal insufficiency incidence, but not worse outcomes in cardiac surgical patients.

Use of etomidate in patients with heart failure undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic heart failure undergoing noncardiac surgery may benefit from the haemodynamic profile of etomidate. However, the safety of etomidate in this population is unknown. We examined anaesthesiologist variation in etomidate use and assessed its safety using an instrumental variable approach to account for differences in treatment selection.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 19 714 patients with heart failure undergoing noncardiac surgery at two tertiary care institutions from January 2006 to December 2017 was performed. The proportion of etomidate use among 294 anaesthesiologists was examined and adjusted risk differences (aRD) for in-hospital and 30-day mortality were calculated using physician preference for etomidate as an instrumental variable.

RESULTS

Etomidate was used in 14.3% (2821/19 714) of patients. Preference for etomidate varied substantially among individual anaesthesiologists with the lowest and highest quartile users using etomidate in 0-4.7% and 20.4-66.7% of their own heart failure patients, respectively. The adjusted instrumental variable analysis showed no significant differences in the risk of in-hospital (aRD -0.2%; 95% confidence interval, -2.4%-1.9%; P=0.83) or 30 day mortality (aRD 0.2%; 95% confidence interval, -2.5%-2.9%; P=0.90). Anaesthesiologists with higher preferences for etomidate were more experienced (greater heart failure and total case volume) than anaesthesiologists with lower preferences for etomidate.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial variability in anaesthesiologists' preference for etomidate for use in patients with heart failure undergoing noncardiac surgery. There was no association between etomidate use and in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Etomidate is not inferior to other currently used options for induction of general anaesthesia in patients with heart failure.

Choice of Perioperative Anesthetic Medications in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery

The prevalence of obesity is increasing globally. Rational perioperative anesthetic drug selection and administration require knowledge of how obesity interacts with those drugs. In this review, we summarize different aspects of the anesthetic agents, including pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical application of the most commonly used medications with particular focus on the enhanced recovery of the obese patient.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on etomidate-induced myoclonus: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial

Background: Etomidate used for the induction of general anesthesia can result in myoclonus. We tested the hypothesis that pretreatment with dexmedetomidine (Dex) reduces the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus during the induction of general anesthesia.

Materials and methods: One hundred patients who were scheduled for selective operations under general anesthesia were included in this randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Patients were randomized to receive either Dex 0.5 µg/kg in 20 mL of normal saline or the same volume of normal saline as pretreatment agents 15 mins before the injection of etomidate 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus. Secondary endpoints were the severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus and the incidence of adverse effects from the onset of action of Dex or normal saline to the injection of etomidate, such as dizziness, respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension and nausea/vomiting.

Results: All of the 100 patients completed the trial. Dex resulted in a significant 38% reduction in the number of patients who experienced etomidate-induced myoclonus: 13 (26%) vs 32 (64%) (P=0.0001). Additionally, the severity of myoclonus was also reduced in the Dex group than that in the placebo group (P=0.02). Incidence of dizziness, respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension and nausea/vomiting was similar in both groups.

Conclusions: Pretreatment with Dex 0.5 µg/kg 15 mins before the induction of general anesthesia not only resulted in a 38% reduction in the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus, but also reduced the severity of myoclonus, without inducing any adverse effects.

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

Relative Adrenal Insufficiency Is Associated With Prolonged Postoperative Hemodynamic Instability

BACKGROUND

We assessed the hypothesis that a significant proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery have postoperative relative adrenal insufficiency (RAI), and that this puts them at higher risk of persistent hemodynamic instability.

METHODS

A prospective study included 135 patients who underwent cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass between July 2006 and December 2007. Adrenal function was assessed 36 hours after surgery using a 1-μg cosyntropin (adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH]) stimulation test. Relative adrenal insufficiency was defined as a peak cortisol level inferior to 500 nmol/L or an increase in cortisol of less than 250 nmol/L, or both, compared with baseline. The primary endpoint was hemodynamic instability at 48 hours after surgery, defined as persistent requirement for any vasoactive drug. The secondary endpoint was long-term survival.

RESULTS

Postoperative RAI was diagnosed in 75 patients (56%). Compared with patients who showed a normal response to the ACTH stimulation test, patients with RAI had significantly higher rates of hemodynamic instability at 48 hours (40% versus 22%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, adrenal response to the ACTH test was a significant independent predictor of hemodynamic instability at 48 hours after surgery (odds ratio 1.06 [95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.11] per 10 nmol/L cortisol decrease; p = 0.002). At a mean follow-up of 8.3 ± 2.8 years, patients without perioperative RAI had survival equivalent to that of the general population, whereas patients with RAI had lower than expected survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative RAI is common among patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is associated with an increased risk of persistent hemodynamic instability.

Anaesthetic induction with etomidate in cardiac surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Etomidate is perceived as preserving haemodynamic stability during induction of anaesthesia. It is also associated with adrenocortical dysfunction. The risk/benefit relationship is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

We tested the hypotheses that single-dose etomidate increases cumulative vasopressor requirement, time to extubation and length of stay in the ICU.

DESIGN

Double-blind randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, from November 2006 to December 2009.

PATIENTS

There were 90 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) and 40 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVS). Reasons for noninclusion were known adrenocortical insufficiency, use of etomidate or propofol within 1 week preoperatively, use of glucocorticoids within 6 months preoperatively, severe renal or liver dysfunction, or carotid stenosis.

INTERVENTIONS

CABG patients were allocated randomly to receive either etomidate 0.15 mg kg with placebo, propofol 1.5 mg kg with placebo or etomidate 0.15 mg kg with hydrocortisone (n = 30 in each arm). Risk stratification (low vs. high) was achieved by block randomisation. MVS patients received either etomidate 0.15 mg kg or propofol 1.5 mg kg (n = 20 in each arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cumulative vasopressor requirements, incidence of adrenocortical insufficiency, length of time to extubation and length of stay in ICU.

RESULTS

Cumulative vasopressor requirements 24 h after induction did not differ between treatments in patients who underwent CABG, whereas more noradrenaline was used in MVS patients following propofol induction (absolute mean difference 5.86 μg kg over 24 h P = 0.047). The incidence of relative adrenocortical insufficiency was higher after etomidate alone than propofol (CABG 83 vs. 37%, P < 0.001; MVS: 95 vs. 35%, P < 0.001). The time to extubation, length of stay in ICU and 30-day mortality did not differ among treatments. Within low and high-risk subgroups, no differences in vasopressor use or outcomes were found.

CONCLUSION

In elective cardiac surgery, laboratory indicators of etomidate-induced adrenal insufficiency do not translate into increased vasopressor requirement or inferior early outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 00415701.

Steroid administration after anaesthetic induction with etomidate does not reduce in-hospital mortality or cardiovascular morbidity after non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

We tested the primary hypothesis that corticosteroid administration after etomidate exposure reduces a composite of in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated ASA physical status III and IV patients who had non-cardiac surgery with general anaesthesia at the Cleveland Clinic. Amongst 4275 patients in whom anaesthesia was induced with etomidate, 804 were also given steroid intraoperatively, mostly dexamethasone at a median dose of 6 mg. We successfully matched 582 steroid patients with 1023 non-steroid patients. The matched groups were compared on composite of in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular morbidity using a generalized-estimating-equation model. Secondly, the matched groups were compared on length of hospital stay using a Cox proportional hazard model, and were descriptively compared on intraoperative blood pressures using a standardized difference.

RESULTS

There was no significant association between intraoperative steroid administration after anaesthetic induction with etomidate and the composite of in-hospital mortality or cardiovascular morbidity; the estimated common odds ratio across the two components of the composite was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 1.16] for steroid vs non-steroid, P=0.33. The duration of postoperative hospitalisation was significantly shorter amongst steroid patients [median (Q1, Q3): 6 (3, 10) days] than non-steroid patients [7 (4, 11) days], with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.89 (0.80, 0.98) for steroid vs non-steroid, P=0.01. Intraoperative blood pressures were similar in steroid and non-steroid patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid administration after induction of anaesthesia with etomidate did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular morbidity.

A randomized clinical trial comparing hemodynamic responses to ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) versus etomidate during anesthesia induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

INTRODUCTION

Anesthesia induction is often accompanied by a period of hemodynamic instability, which could be a significant problem in patients with compromised ventricular function. The aim of this study is to compare the hemodynamic responses to etomidate versus a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for anesthetic induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a double-blind randomized clinical study, a total of 84 patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (EF < 40%) were randomly assigned to two groups (A and B). Patients in group A received etomidate 0.2 mg/kg and a placebo (normal saline); group B received a combination of ketamine (1 mg/kg) and propofol (1.5 mg/kg) at the induction of anesthesia. Two minutes after induction, hemodynamic variables, including systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure (SAP, DAP, MAP) and heart rate (HR), were measured immediately before and after the laryngoscopy, and before intubation and post-intubation at 1, 2, and 3 min.

RESULTS

The decrease in all hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, MAP and HR) from induction time to laryngoscopy was greater in the ketofol group (group B) than in the etomidate group (group A) (p < 0.05). The ephedrine prescription rate due to hemodynamic changes was 24.4% (10 patients) and 5% (2 patients) in group B and group A, respectively (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that etomidate provides superior hemodynamic stability as compared to ketofol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing CABG surgery under general anesthesia.

The Comparison of Etomidate and Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.

The role of etomidate as an anaesthetic induction agent for critically ill patients

Etomidate is an anaesthetic induction agent which may be favoured in critically ill patients because of its cardiovascular stability. However, etomidate causes adrenocortical suppression which may be particularly harmful in these patients. This article reviews current evidence and debates the use of etomidate in critical illness.

Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy: A double-blind randomized clinical study

The aim of the present study is to compare the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of anesthetic regimens by compound, using etomidate and propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. A total of 200 volunteers (65-79 years of age) scheduled for gastroscopy under anesthesia were randomly divided into the following groups: P, propofol (1.5-2.0 mg/kg); E, etomidate (0.15-0.2 mg/kg); P+E, propofol (0.75-1 mg/kg) followed by etomidate (0.075-0.1 mg/kg); and E+P, etomidate (0.075-0.01 mg/kg) followed by propofol (0.75-1 mg/kg). Vital signs and bispectral index were monitored at different time points. Complications, induction and examination time, anesthesia duration, and recovery and discharge time were recorded. At the end of the procedure, the satisfaction of patients, endoscopists and the anesthetist were evaluated. The recovery (6.1±1.2 h) and discharge times (24.8±2.8 h) in group E were significantly longer compared with groups P, P+E and E+P (P<0.05). The occurrence of injection pain in group P+E was significantly higher compared with the other three groups (P<0.05). In addition, the incidence of myoclonus and post-operative nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in group P+E compared with the other three groups (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference among the four groups with regards to the patients' immediate, post-procedure satisfaction (P>0.05). Furthermore, there was no difference in the satisfaction of anesthesia, as evaluated by the anesthetist and endoscopist, among the four groups (P>0.05). The present study demonstrates that anesthesia for gastroscopy in elderly patients can be safely and effectively accomplished using a drug regimen that combines propofol with etomidate. The combined use of propofol and etomidate has unique characteristics which improve hemodynamic stability, cause minimal respiratory depression and less side effects, provide rapid return to full activity and result in high levels of satisfaction.

Effect of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting/mitral valve and aortic valve replacement surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass

INTRODUCTION

The concerns for induction of anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery include hemodynamic stability, attenuation of stress response and maintenance of balance between myocardial oxygen demand and supply. Various Intravenous anaesthetic agents like Thiopentone, Etomidate, Propofol, Midazolam, and Ketamine have been used for anesthetizing patients for cardiac surgeries. However, many authors have expressed concerns regarding induction with thiopentone, midazolam and ketamine. Hence, Propofol and Etomidate are preferred for induction in these patients. However, these two drugs have different characteristics. Etomidate is preferred for patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function as it provides stable cardiovascular profile. But there are concerns about reduction in adrenal suppression and serum cortisol levels. Propofol, on the other hand may cause a reduction in systemic vascular resistance and subsequent hypotension. Thus, this study was conducted to compare induction with these two agents in cardiac surgeries.

METHODS

Baseline categorical and continuous variables were compared using Fisher's exact test and student's t test respectively. Hemodynamic variables were compared using student's t test for independent samples. The primary outcome (serum cortisol and blood sugar) of the study was compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Etomidate provides more stable hemodynamic parameters as compared to Propofol. Propofol causes vasodilation and may result in drop of systematic BP. Etomidate can therefore be safely used for induction in patients with good LV function for CABG/MVR/AVR on CPB without serious cortisol suppression lasting more than twenty-four hours.

A comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Induction of anesthesia is a critical part of anesthesia practice. Sudden hypotension, arrhythmias, and cardiovascular collapse are threatening complications following injection of induction agent in hemodynamically unstable patients. It is desirable to use a safe agent with fewer adverse effects for this purpose. Present prospective randomized study is designed to compare propofol and etomidate for their effect on hemodynamics and various adverse effects on patients in general anesthesia.

METHODS

Hundred ASA I and II patients of age group 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgical procedure under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 50 each receiving propofol (2mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3mg/kg) as an induction agent. Vital parameters at induction, laryngoscopy and thereafter recorded for comparison. Adverse effect viz. pain on injection, apnea and myoclonus were carefully watched.

RESULTS

Demographic variables were comparable in both the groups. Patients in etomidate group showed little change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) compared to propofol (p>0.05) from baseline value. Pain on injection was more in propofol group while myoclonus activity was higher in etomidate group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that etomidate is a better agent for induction than propofol in view of hemodynamic stability and less pain on injection.

Population pharmacokinetics of etomidate in neonates and infants with congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Etomidate is a rapid-onset, short-acting hypnotic medication administered for the induction of anesthesia. It is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in older children and adults. Pharmacokinetic data to help guide dosing in neonates and infants are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics of etomidate in neonates and infants with congenital heart disease undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Four neonates and 16 infants, postnatal age 0.3-11.7 months, requiring open-heart surgery received 0.3 mg/kg of etomidate administered as a single intravenous dose prior to surgery. Blood sampling for plasma etomidate concentration occurred immediately following etomidate administration until the initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass. A population pharmacokinetic approach using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling was applied to characterize etomidate pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetics of etomidate was described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination. An allometric weight-based model was applied to scale results to a 70 kg adult. Covariates including age and cardiac physiology were not found significantly to impact etomidate pharmacokinetics. The study population was found to have a central and intercompartmental clearance of 0.624 l/min/70 kg and 0.44 l/min/70 kg, respectively; central and peripheral distribution volume of 9.47 l/70 kgand 22.8 l/70 kg, respectively. Inter-individual variability was 94-142% for all parameters and the residual variability was 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

The clearance of etomidate is lower in neonates and infants with congenital heart disease compared with published values for older children without congenital heart disease. In addition, etomidate pharmacokinetics is highly variable in this pediatric cardiac population.

Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

The use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects mortality.The secondary objectives were to address, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects adrenal gland function, organ dysfunction, or health services utilization (as measured by intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor requirements).We repeated analyses within subgroups defined by the aetiologies of critical illness, timing of adrenal gland function measurement, and the type of comparator drug used.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; CINAHL; EMBASE; LILACS; International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; Web of Science; the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); and ISI BIOSIS Citation index(SM) on 8 February 2013. We reran the searches in August 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.We also searched the Scopus database of dissertations and conference proceedings and the US Food and Drug Administration Database. We handsearched major emergency medicine, critical care, and anaesthesiology journals.We handsearched the conference proceedings of major emergency medicine, anaesthesia, and critical care conferences from 1990 to current, and performed a grey literature search of the following: Current Controlled Trials; National Health Service - The National Research Register; ClinicalTrials.gov; NEAR website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation for critical illness, including but not limited to trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, septic shock, hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock, and undifferentiated shock states. We included single (bolus) dose etomidate for emergency airway intervention compared to any other rapid-acting intravenous bolus single-dose induction agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Refinement of our initial search results by title review, and then by abstract review was carried out by three review authors. Full-text review of potential studies was based on their adherence to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was decided by three independent review authors. We reported the decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion in accordance with the PRISMA statement.Electronic database searching yielded 1635 potential titles, and our grey literature search yielded an additional 31 potential titles. Duplicate titles were filtered leaving 1395 titles which underwent review of their titles and abstracts by three review authors. Sixty seven titles were judged to be relevant to our review, however only eight met our inclusion criteria and seven were included in our analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in the review and seven in the meta-analysis. Of those seven studies, only two were judged to be at low risk of bias. Overall, no strong evidence exists that etomidate increases mortality in critically ill patients when compared to other bolus dose induction agents (odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.60, 6 studies, 772 participants, moderate quality evidence). Due to a large number of participants lost to follow-up, we performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis. This gave a similar result (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). There was evidence that the use of etomidate in critically ill patients was associated with a positive adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test, and this difference was more pronounced at between 4 to 6 hours (OR 19.98; 95% CI 3.95 to 101.11) than after 12 hours (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47) post-dosing. Etomidate's use in critically ill patients was associated with a small increase in SOFA score, indicating a higher risk of multisystem organ failure (mean difference (MD) 0.70; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.39, 2 studies, 591 participants, high quality evidence), but this difference was not clinically meaningful. Etomidate use did not have an effect on ICU LOS (MD 1.70 days; 95% CI -2.00 to 5.40, 4 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), hospital LOS (MD 2.41 days; 95% CI -7.08 to 11.91, 3 studies, 152 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.14 days; 95% CI -1.67 to 5.95, 3 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), or duration of vasopressor use (MD 1.00 day; 95% CI -0.53 to 2.53, 1 study, 469 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we have not found conclusive evidence that etomidate increases mortality or healthcare resource utilization in critically ill patients, it does seem to increase the risk of adrenal gland dysfunction and multi-organ system dysfunction by a small amount. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown. This evidence is judged to be of moderate quality, owing mainly to significant attrition bias in some of the smaller studies, and new research may influence the outcomes of our review. The applicability of these data may be limited by the fact that 42% of the patients in our review were intubated for "being comatose", a population less likely to benefit from the haemodynamic stability inherent in etomidate use, and less at risk from its potential negative downstream effects of adrenal suppression.

Hemodynamic responses to etomidate versus ketamine-thiopental sodium combination for anesthetic induction in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients with low ejection fraction: a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

During induction of anesthesia and intubation, hemodynamic changes are very important; especially in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction. A little information is available on the hemodynamic effects of a combination of ketamine-thiopental for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, with impaired ventricular function.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic responses to etomidate versus ketamine-thiopental sodium combination for anesthetic induction in CABG surgery patients with low ejection fraction (EF<45%).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a double blind randomized clinical trial, a total of 100 patients, scheduled for elective CABG surgery were randomly assigned into two groups. These patients received either etomidate or ketamine-thiopental sodium combination at induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamics variable were measured and recorded at baseline, immediately before and after laryngoscopy and intubation, one, two and three minutes after intubation. Also, muscle twitching incidence among patients in two groups was evaluated.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the two groups regarding the changes of hemodynamic variables including systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressure, mean arterial pressure and heart rate, were notice (p>0.05). Muscle twitching was not observed in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Hemodynamic stability after administration of ketamine-thiopental sodium combination for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing CABG surgery, with impaired ventricular function, supports the clinical impression that this combination is safe in CABG surgery patients with low EF.

Etomidate for anesthesia induction: friends or foe in major cardiac surgery?

Use of etomidate for anesthesia induction is still debated. In the previous issue of Critical Care, Heinrich and colleagues reported that etomidate for anesthesia induction had similar outcome in comparison with other drugs, in a specific population of 3,054 patients ahead of major cardiac surgery. For the authors, the similar outcomes for mortality and length of hospital stay add to the hemodynamic stability and the improved intubation conditions to support keeping etomidate in the emergency drugs armamentarium for induction of anesthesia in patients at risk of hemodynamic failure. This commentary reviews the results and implications of their study.

Tissue near infra red spectroscopy change is not correlated with patients' outcome in elective cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Microcirculatory disturbances following cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are thought to be at the origin of organ dysfunction, although few studies have correlated microvascular alterations with outcome. We aimed to assess the microcirculation with near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and correlate NIRS parameters with intensive care length of stay and organ dysfunction.

METHODS

Forty patients at increased risk of postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome after an elective cardiac surgery with CPB were included in this prospective observational study. Microcirculation of the thenar eminence was analysed by NIRS technology, through the tissue oxygen saturation (StO2 ) and the recovery slope after an ischaemic challenge. Organ dysfunction was assessed with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Microcirculation parameters were recorded at baseline, at different time points during the surgery and the first 48 postoperative hours.

RESULTS

StO2 at baseline was 82% and decreased significantly until 77% at 2 h after CPB. Recovery slope values were 4.3% per second at baseline and decreased to 2.5% per second during CPB (P < 0.05). From 12 h after CPB time point, both parameters were not statistically different from baseline anymore. We found no correlation between microcirculatory parameters and mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or SOFA score.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms, through a non-invasive technology, a significant but transient alteration of the microcirculation during elective cardiac surgery. However, as these microvascular alterations were not correlated with patient's outcome, NIRS-derived parameters seem to be of limited interest in the cardiac surgery setting.

Comparison of clinical outcome variables in patients with and without etomidate-facilitated anesthesia induction ahead of major cardiac surgery: a retrospective analysis

Introduction

It is well known that etomidate may cause adrenal insufficiency. However, the clinical relevance of adrenal suppression after a single dose of etomidate remains vague. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the administration of a single dose of etomidate or an alternative induction regime ahead of major cardiac surgery and clinical outcome parameters associated with adrenal suppression and onset of sepsis.

Methods

The anesthesia and intensive care unit (ICU) records from patients undergoing cardiac surgery over five consecutive years (2008 to 2012) were retrospectively analyzed. The focus of the analysis was on clinical parameters like mortality, ventilation hours, renal failure, and sepsis-linked serum parameters. Multivariate analysis and Cox regression were applied to derive the results.

Results

In total, 3,054 patient records were analyzed. A group of 1,775 (58%) patients received a single dose of etomidate; 1,279 (42%) patients did not receive etomidate at any time. There was no difference in distribution of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical score, duration of surgery, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Postoperative data showed no significant differences between the two groups in regard to mortality (6.8% versus 6.4%), mean of mechanical ventilation hours (21.2 versus 19.7), days in the ICU (2.6 versus 2.5), hospital days (18.7 versus 17.4), sepsis-associated parameters, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and incidence of renal failure. Administration of etomidate showed no significant influence (P = 0.6) on hospital mortality in the multivariate Cox analysis.

Conclusions

This study found no evidence for differences in key clinical outcome parameters based on anesthesia induction with or without administration of a single dose of etomidate. In consequence, etomidate might remain an acceptable option for single-dose anesthesia induction.

Etomidate use and postoperative outcomes among cardiac surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Although a single dose of etomidate can cause relative adrenal insufficiency, the impact of etomidate exposure on postoperative outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the association between a single induction dose of etomidate and clinically important postoperative outcomes after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined the association between etomidate exposure during induction of anesthesia and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery from January 2007 to December 2009 by using multivariate logistic regression analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Postoperative outcomes of interest were severe hypotension, mechanical ventilation hours, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two percent of 3,127 patients received etomidate. Etomidate recipients had a higher incidence of preoperative congestive heart failure (23.0 vs. 18.3%; P = 0.002) and a lower incidence of preoperative cardiogenic shock (1.3 vs. 4.0%; P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for severe hypotension and in-hospital mortality associated with receiving etomidate was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58-1.09) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.45-1.24), respectively, and the adjusted hazard ratio for time to mechanical ventilation removal and time to hospital discharge was 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21) and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18), respectively. Propensity score analysis did not change the association between etomidate use and postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, there was no evidence to suggest that etomidate exposure was associated with severe hypotension, longer mechanical ventilation hours, longer length of hospital stay, or in-hospital mortality. Etomidate should remain an option for induction of anesthesia in cardiac surgery patients.

Anesthetic Management for Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Cardiopulmonary bypass has revolutionized the practice of cardiac surgery and allows safe conduct of increasingly complex cardiac surgery. A brief review of the bypass circuit is undertaken in this review. A more thorough review of the anesthetic management is accomplished including choice of anesthetic medications and their effects. The inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass is reviewed along with interventions that may help ameliorate the inflammation.

Etomidate--a review of robust evidence for its use in various clinical scenarios

Etomidate is an intravenous hypnotic with a favourable clinical profile in haemodynamic high-risk scenarios. Currently, there is an active debate about the clinical significance of the drug's side effects and its overall risk-benefit ratio. Etomidate-induced transient adrenocortical suppression is well documented and has been associated with increased mortality in sepsis. In surgical patients at risk of hypotensive complications, however, a review of current literature provides no robust evidence to contraindicate a single-bolus etomidate induction. Large randomised controlled trials as well as additional observational data are required to compare safety of etomidate and its alternatives.

Anesthetic Pharmacology and the Morbidly Obese Patient

Anesthesiologists are increasingly being faced with treating obese patients. Physiologic and anthropometric associated with obesity-most notably increases in cardiac output, changes in tissue perfusion and increases in total body weight (TBW), lean body weight (LBW), and fat mass affect the pharmacokinetics (PK) of anesthetic agents. In addition, redundancy of airway tissue, obstructive and central sleep apnea and CO2 retention affect the pharmacodynamics (PD) of anesthetics and narrow the therapeutic window of numerous anesthetic drugs. Safe and effective pharmacologic management of the obese patient requires a thorough understanding of how obesity affects the PK and PD of anesthetics.

Steroidogenesis in the adrenal dysfunction of critical illness: impact of etomidate

Introduction

This study was aimed at characterizing basal and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-induced steroidogenesis in sepsis and nonsepsis patients with a suspicion of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI), taking the use of etomidate-inhibiting 11β-hydroxylase into account.

Method

This was a prospective study in a mixed surgical/medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. The patients were 62 critically ill patients with a clinical suspicion of CIRCI. The patients underwent a 250-μg ACTH test (n = 67). ACTH, adrenal steroids, substrates, and precursors (modified tandem mass spectrometry) also were measured. Clinical characteristics including use of etomidate to facilitate intubation (n = 14 within 72 hours of ACTH testing) were recorded.

Results

At the time of ACTH testing, patients had septic (n = 43) or nonseptic critical illness (n = 24). Baseline cortisol directly related to sepsis and endogenous ACTH, independent of etomidate use. Etomidate was associated with a lower baseline cortisol and cortisol/11β-deoxycortisol ratio as well as higher 11β-deoxycortisol, reflecting greater 11β-hydroxylase inhibition in nonsepsis than in sepsis. Cortisol increases < 250 mM in exogenous ACTH were associated with relatively low baseline (HDL-) cholesterol, and high endogenous ACTH with low cortisol/ACTH ratio, independent of etomidate. Although cortisol increases with exogenous ACTH, levels were lower in sepsis than in nonsepsis patients, and etomidate was associated with diminished increases in cortisol with exogenous ACTH, so that its use increased, albeit nonsignificantly, low cortisol increases to exogenous ACTH from 38% to 57%, in both conditions.

Conclusions

A single dose of etomidate may attenuate stimulated more than basal cortisol synthesis. However, it may only partly contribute, particularly in the stressed sepsis patient, to the adrenal dysfunction of CIRCI, in addition to substrate deficiency.