Related Articles

Background

Because of its many desirable properties, etomidate is widely used as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation. However, some have recently called into question the safety of etomidate for even single-bolus use due to its known effects on adrenal suppression.

Objectives

We sought to compare the in-hospital mortality between septic patients given etomidate and those given alternative induction agents for intubation.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of intubated septic patients treated in our hospital. We collected data from patients over the age of 18 with sepsis who were intubated in the pre-hospital setting, in our emergency department, or on the wards of our hospital, and calculated the in-hospital mortality of each group.

Results

We identified 181 patients with sepsis who were intubated over the study period; 135 received etomidate and 46 received alternative agents or no induction agent. Baseline characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar between the two groups. Of the 46 patients receiving alternative agents or no agent, 18 died, yielding an unadjusted mortality of 39.1% (95% CI 25.5% to 54.6%), while of the 135 patients receiving etomidate, 63 died, for an unadjusted mortality of 46.7% (95% CI 38.1% to 55.4%), P=0.38.

Conclusion

We found a non-statistically significant 7.6% absolute increase in mortality in patients given etomidate in our small-sized study population.

Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate’s effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data.

Background:

Single-dose etomidate is used as an induction agent for rapid-sequence intubation and is associated with transient adrenal insufficiency. There is ongoing debate as to the clinical consequences of this transient adrenal insufficiency for critically ill patients.

Objective:

To determine if the use of etomidate is associated with higher requirements for a vasopressor, relative to other induction agents, at a single time point (24 h after administration of the induction agent) in patients needing mechanical ventilation.

Methods:

In this retrospective observational study utilizing electronic health records, a convenience sample of 50 patients who had undergone intubation in the emergency department with etomidate were matched (1:1) with patients who had received other induction agents. Matching was based on primary admitting diagnosis relating to the cause of shock, APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, age, and sex. All patients were subsequently admitted to critical care areas for management. As a surrogate marker of hemodynamic instability, the vasopressor dose was recorded 24 h after intubation. Vasopressor doses were converted to norepinephrine equivalents for comparison.

Results:

The mean dose of vasopressors, in norepinephrine equivalents, was 4 μg/min−1 for patients receiving etomidate and 3 μg/min−1 for the control group (mean difference 0.7 μg min−1, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.9 to 3.2 μg min−1, p = 0.61). Twelve of the patients in the etomidate group and 16 of those in the control group required the use of vasopressors at 24 h following intubation (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 0.53 to 13.99, p = 0.34).

Conclusions:

Single-dose etomidate does not adversely affect hemodynamic stability, as measured by the dose of vasopressors required at 24 h after administration.

Introduction

Etomidate blocks adrenocortical synthesis when it is administered intravenously as a continuous infusion or a single bolus. The influence of etomidate administration on the incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency in patients with septic shock has not been formally investigated. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency in patients with septic shock after etomidate administration compared with patients with septic shock who did not receive etomidate.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 152 adults with septic shock who had a consyntropin stimulation test between March 2002 and August 2003 in a tertiary medical center were included. Relative adrenal insufficiency was defined as a rise in serum cortisol ≤ 9 μg/dl after the administration of 250 μg of consyntropin. Patients were divided into those who did and those who did not receive etomidate before the stimulation test. The proportion of patients with relative adrenal insufficiency in these two groups was compared using Fischer's exact test. A P of value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 64 years, 59% of patients were male, 97% of patients were white and their hospital mortality rate was 57%. Thirty-eight patients (25%) received etomidate before the cosyntropin stimulation test, and the median (interquartile range) time interval between the administration of the drug and the test was 7 (4–10) hours. The incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency was 76% in the patients who received etomidate compared with 51% in the patients who did not (P = 0.0077).

Conclusion

The incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency in patients with septic shock is increased when the stimulation test is performed after the administration of etomidate.

Etomidate and midazolam are the most popular drugs among the induction agents for emergent endotracheal intubation. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adrenal insufficiency and mortality between the septic shock patients who received etomidate (ETM group) and those who received midazolam (MDZ group). Between November 2004 and September 2006, 65 patients were analyzed in this study. The hospital mortality rate was 36% in the ETM group (n=25) and 50% in the MDZ group (n=40), which was not statistically significant (p=0.269). The incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency was significantly higher in the ETM group than in the MDZ group (84% and 48%, respectively; p=0.003). On multivariate analysis, the use of etomidate was the only significant factor affecting the incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency (odds radio, 5.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-19.4). In conclusion, we think that physicians who treat patients with septic shock should be aware that etomidate can cause adrenal insufficiency, and should start corticosteroids if etomidate is administered.

Objective

To investigate the effect of one single bolus of etomidate used for intubation on adrenal function in children with meningococcal sepsis.

Design

Retrospective study conducted between 1997 and 2004.

Setting

University-affiliated paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Patients and participants

Sixty children admitted to the PICU with meningococcal sepsis, not treated with steroids.

Interventions

Adrenal hormone concentrations were determined as soon as possible after PICU admission, and after 12 h and 24 h. To assess disease severity, PRISM score and selected laboratory parameters were determined.

Measurements and main results

On admission, before blood was drawn, 23 children had been intubated with etomidate, 8 without etomidate and 29 were not intubated. Children who were intubated had significantly higher disease severity parameters than those not intubated, whereas none of these parameters significantly differed between children intubated with or without etomidate. Children who received etomidate had significantly lower cortisol, higher ACTH and higher 11-deoxycortisol levels than those who did not receive etomidate. Arterial glucose levels were significantly lower in children who were intubated with etomidate than in non-intubated children. When children were intubated with etomidate, cortisol levels were 3.2 times lower for comparable 11-deoxycortisol levels. Eight children died, seven of whom had received etomidate. Within 24 h cortisol/ACTH and cortisol/11-deoxycortisol ratios increased significantly in children who received etomidate, but not in children who did not, resulting in comparable cortisol/ACTH ratios with still significantly lowered cortisol/11-deoxycortisol ratios 24 h after admission.

Conclusions

Our data imply that even one single bolus of etomidate negatively influences adrenal function for at least 24 h. It might therefore increase risk of death.

BACKGROUND:

Etomidate frequently leads to myoclonic jerks during anesthetic induction. This study aimed to detect if pretreatment with magnesium decreases myoclonus incidence.

METHODS:

A hundred ASA (the American Society of Anesthesiologists) I-II patients were included and randomized into 2 groups. Three minutes before etomidate induction of anesthesia (by 0.3 mg/kg intravenous etomidate), Group M received 2.48 mmol (60 mg) intravenous magnesium sulphate and Group P received equal volume of intravenous saline. Myoclonus was evaluated as “present/absent”.

RESULTS:

The rate of myoclonus was significantly lower in Group M than in Group P (p < 0.01). Hemodynamic parameters revealed no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Low dose magnesium pretreatment before etomidate induction of anesthesia significantly reduces unwanted myoclonic jerks and also protects the hemodynamic stability.

Introduction

In seriously ill patients, etomidate gives cardiovascular stability at induction of anaesthesia, but there is concern over possible adrenal suppression. Etomidate could reduce steroid synthesis and increase the need for vasopressor and steroid therapy. The outcome could be worse than in patients given other induction agents.

Methods

We reviewed 159 septic shock patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) over a 40-month period to study the association between induction agent and clinical outcome, including vasopressor, inotrope, and steroid therapy. From our records, we retrieved induction agent use; vasopressor administration at induction; vasopressor, inotrope, and steroid administration in the ICU; and hospital outcome.

Results

Hospital mortality was 65%. The numbers of patients given an induction agent were 74, etomidate; 25, propofol; 26, thiopental; 18, other agent; and 16, no agent. Vasopressor, inotrope, or steroid administration and outcome were not related to the induction agent chosen. Corticosteroid therapy given to patients who received etomidate did not affect outcome. Vasopressor therapy was required less frequently and in smaller doses when etomidate was used to induce anaesthesia. We found no evidence that either clinical outcome or therapy was affected when etomidate was used. Etomidate caused less cardiovascular depression than other induction agents in patients with septic shock.

Conclusion

Etomidate use for critically ill patients should consider all of these issues and not simply the possibility of adrenal suppression, which may not be important when steroid supplements are used.

Objective: To compare the haemodynamic effect of low dose midazolam and etomidate as induction agent in emergency department rapid sequence intubation.

Methods: A prospective observational study in two phases. In phase one, midazolam 2–4 mg was used as induction agent and in phase two, etomidate 0.2–0.3 mg/kg was used. The haemodynamic data were recorded before and after intubation for comparison. Changes in mean systolic blood pressure were analysed with SPSS software.

Results: A 10% decrease in mean systolic blood pressure was observed in the midazolam group (p = 0.001) while there was no significant change in the etomidate group. Some 19.5% of patients had hypotension after being given midazolam while only 3.6% with etomidate (p = 0.002). Patients older than 70 tended to have more hypotension episodes but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Midazolam, even in low dose, was more likely than etomidate to cause significant hypotension when used as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation. Etomidate is a better alternative.

Background:

In earlier work, it was shown that patients with septic shock who also have adrenal insufficiency experience a benefit in terms of lower mortality rates with hydrocortisone supplementation. As such, the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test has been used frequently to identify these patients. However, recent evidence has suggested that the identification and treatment of adrenal insufficiency in patients with septic shock does not reduce mortality. These results call into question the utility of the ACTH stimulation test in this patient population.

Objectives:

To determine the indications for ordering the ACTH stimulation test for critically ill patients at a tertiary care hospital and to classify the indications as either appropriate (e.g., primary adrenal insufficiency or medication-induced suppression of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis) or inappropriate (e.g., patients with septic shock, prior etomidate exposure, or absence of steroid use).

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of health care records was conducted for all patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit and who had undergone an ACTH stimulation test during 2007. For each patient, the indication for the test was identified and classified as appropriate or inappropriate.

Results:

A total of 35 ACTH stimulation tests were performed during the study period, of which 8 (23%) were classified as having an appropriate indication and 27 (77%) as having an inappropriate indication. Of the tests with an inappropriate indication, 15 (56%) were ordered for patients with septic shock. However, the number of ACTH tests ordered for this indication declined as the year progressed.

Conclusions:

The ACTH stimulation test was often used inappropriately for patients with septic shock. Over time, there appeared to be a trend away from use of this test in this patient population, perhaps reflecting increasing awareness of the lack of benefit.

The choice of induction agent for endotracheal intubation can have significant downstream effects, especially in critically ill patients. In a retrospective study, Ray and McKeown found that the choice of induction agent had no significant effect on use of vasoactive medications, corticosteroids, or mortality. Given the heated debate regarding corticosteroids in septic shock and the role that etomidate may play in leading to adrenal insufficiency, enthusiasm for etomidate as an induction agent should be tempered by its possible, significant side effects in these critically ill patients.

Background

Recent studies have reported a high prevalence of relative adrenal insufficiency in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the effect of corticosteroid replacement on mortality in this high-risk group remains unclear. We examined the effect of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with cirrhosis who presented with septic shock.

Methods

We enrolled patients with cirrhosis and septic shock aged 18 years or older in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Relative adrenal insufficiency was defined as a serum cortisol increase of less than 250 nmol/L or 9 μg/dL from baseline after stimulation with 250 μg of intravenous corticotropin. Patients were assigned to receive 50 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone or placebo every six hours until hemodynamic stability was achieved, followed by steroid tapering over eight days. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality.

Results

The trial was stopped for futility at interim analysis after 75 patients were enrolled. Relative adrenal insufficiency was diagnosed in 76% of patients. Compared with the placebo group (n = 36), patients in the hydrocortisone group (n = 39) had a significant reduction in vasopressor doses and higher rates of shock reversal (relative risk [RR] 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98–2.55, p = 0.05). Hydrocortisone use was not associated with a reduction in 28-day mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92–1.49, p = 0.19) but was associated with an increase in shock relapse (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.04–6.45, p = 0.03) and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.08–8.36, p = 0.02).

Interpretation

Relative adrenal insufficiency was very common in patients with cirrhosis presenting with septic shock. Despite initial favourable effects on hemodynamic parameters, hydrocortisone therapy did not reduce mortality and was associated with an increase in adverse effects. (Current Controlled Trials registry no. ISRCTN99675218.)

Background

The importance of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and abdominal perfusion pressure (APP) in cirrhotic patients with septic shock is not well studied. We evaluated the relationship between IAP and APP and outcomes of cirrhotic septic patients, and assessed the ability of these measures compared to other common resuscitative endpoints to differentiate survivors from nonsurvivors.

Methods

This study was a post hoc analysis of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) and IAP were measured every 6 h in 61 cirrhotic septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit. APP was calculated as MAP - IAP. Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) was defined as mean IAP ≥ 12 mmHg, and abdominal hypoperfusion as mean APP < 60 mmHg. Measured outcomes included ICU and hospital mortality, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and ventilator- and vasopressor-free days.

Results

IAH prevalence on the first ICU day was 82%, and incidence in the first 7 days was 97%. Compared to patients with normal IAP, IAH patients had significantly higher ICU mortality (74.0% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.005), required more RRT (78.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.06) and had lower ventilator- and vasopressor-free days. On a multivariate logistic regression analysis, IAH was an independent predictor of both ICU mortality (odds ratio (OR), 12.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.92 to 77.31, p = 0.008) and need for RRT (OR, 6.78; 95% CI, 1.29 to 35.70, p = 0.02). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, IAP (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.74, p = 0.004), APP (AUC = 0.71, p = 0.01), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (AUC = 0.71, p = 0.02), but not MAP, differentiated survivors from nonsurvivors.

Conclusions

IAH is highly prevalent in cirrhotic patients with septic shock and is associated with increased ICU morbidity and mortality.

Introduction

Low-dose hydrocortisone treatment is widely accepted therapy for the treatment of vasopressor-dependent septic shock. The question of whether corticosteroids should be given to septic shock patients by continuous or by bolus infusion is still unanswered. Hydrocortisone induces hyperglycemia and it is possible that continuous hydrocortisone infusion would reduce the fluctuations in blood glucose levels and that tight blood glucose control could be better achieved with this approach.

Methods

In this prospective randomized study, we compared the blood glucose profiles, insulin requirements, amount of nursing workload needed, and shock reversal in 48 septic shock patients who received hydrocortisone treatment either by bolus or by continuous infusion with equivalent dose (200 mg/day). Duration of hydrocortisone treatment was five days.

Results

The mean blood glucose levels were similar in the two groups, but the number of hyperglycemic episodes was significantly higher in those patients who received bolus therapy (15.7 ± 8.5 versus 10.5 ± 8.6 episodes per patient, p = 0.039). Also, more changes in insulin infusion rate were needed to maintain strict normoglycemia in the bolus group (4.7 ± 2.2 versus 3.4 ± 1.9 adjustments per patient per day, p = 0.038). Hypoglycemic episodes were rare in both groups. No difference was seen in shock reversal.

Conclusion

Strict normoglycemia is more easily achieved if the hydrocortisone therapy is given to septic shock patients by continuous infusion. This approach also reduces nursing workload needed to maintain tight blood glucose control.

Trial Registration Number

ISRCTN98820688

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.

Introduction

The current debate about the side effects of induction agents, e.g. possible adrenal suppression through etomidate, emphasizes the relevance of choosing the correct induction agent in septic patients. However, cardiovascular depression is still the most prominent adverse effect of these agents, and might be especially hazardous in septic patients presenting with a biventricular cardiac dysfunction - or so-called septic cardiomyopathy. Therefore, we tested the dose-response direct cardiac effects of clinically available induction agents in an isolated septic rat heart model.

Methods

A polymicrobial sepsis was induced via cecal ligation and single puncture. Hearts (n = 50) were isolated and randomly assigned to five groups, each receiving etomidate, s(+)-ketamine, midazolam, propofol, or methohexitone at concentrations of 1 × 10-8 to 1 × 10-4 M. Left ventricular pressure, contractility and lusitropy, and coronary flow were measured. Cardiac work, myocardial oxygen delivery, oxygen consumption, and percentage of oxygen extraction were calculated.

Results

All of the induction agents tested showed a dose-dependent depression of cardiac work. Maximal cardiac work dysfunction occurred in the rank order of s(+)-ketamine (-6%)

Conclusions

Overall, this study demonstrates that these tested drugs indeed have differential direct cardiac effects in the isolated septic heart. Propofol showed the most pronounced adverse direct cardiac effects. In contrast, S(+)ketamine showed cardiovascular stability over a wide range of concentrations, and might therefore be a beneficial alternative to etomidate.