BACKGROUND: Concerns over adrenal suppression caused by a single dose of etomidate for intubation led to limiting its use in trauma patients in 2006. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, hypotension, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS) for trauma patients requiring intubation during periods of liberal vs. limited etomidate use. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma patients requiring emergent intubation who presented between August 2004 and December 2008, before and after we decided to limit the use of etomidate. Data were collected on patient demographics, induction agents used, episodes of hypotension in the first 24h, ICU and total hospital LOS, and survival. RESULTS: Of 1325 trauma patients intubated in the Emergency Department during the study period, 443 occurred during the 23 months before July 2006 (liberal etomidate use) and 882 in the 30 months after July 2006 (limited etomidate use). During the liberal use period, 258/443 (58%) were intubated using etomidate, compared to 205/882 (23%, p<0.0001) during the period of limited use. We found no significant differences in mortality (30% vs. 29%, p=0.70), mean ICU days (8.2 vs. 8.8, p=0.356), or mean hospital LOS (13.8 vs. 14.4 days, p=0.55). Episodes of hypotension were more common in the limited etomidate use group (45% vs. 33%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in the use of etomidate in trauma patients was not associated with differences in mortality, ICU days, or hospital LOS, but was associated with an increase in episodes of hypotension within 24h of presentation.
BACKGROUND: Concerns over adrenal suppression caused by a single dose of etomidate for intubation led to limiting its use in traumapatients in 2006. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, hypotension, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS) for traumapatients requiring intubation during periods of liberal vs. limited etomidate use. METHODS: A retrospective review of traumapatients requiring emergent intubation who presented between August 2004 and December 2008, before and after we decided to limit the use of etomidate. Data were collected on patient demographics, induction agents used, episodes of hypotension in the first 24h, ICU and total hospital LOS, and survival. RESULTS: Of 1325 traumapatients intubated in the Emergency Department during the study period, 443 occurred during the 23 months before July 2006 (liberal etomidate use) and 882 in the 30 months after July 2006 (limited etomidate use). During the liberal use period, 258/443 (58%) were intubated using etomidate, compared to 205/882 (23%, p<0.0001) during the period of limited use. We found no significant differences in mortality (30% vs. 29%, p=0.70), mean ICU days (8.2 vs. 8.8, p=0.356), or mean hospital LOS (13.8 vs. 14.4 days, p=0.55). Episodes of hypotension were more common in the limited etomidate use group (45% vs. 33%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in the use of etomidate in traumapatients was not associated with differences in mortality, ICU days, or hospital LOS, but was associated with an increase in episodes of hypotension within 24h of presentation.
Authors: S L Zettervall; S Sirajuddin; S Akst; C Valdez; C Golshani; R L Amdur; B Sarani; J R Dunne Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: C Michael Dunham; Thomas J Chirichella; Brian S Gruber; Jonathan P Ferrari; Joseph A Martin; Brenda A Luchs; Barbara M Hileman; Renee Merrell Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 2.217