Background: Etomidate is the standard induction agent used during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Etomidate shortages require providers to utilize alternative agents. The purpose of t...Background: Etomidate is the standard induction agent used during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Etomidate shortages require providers to utilize alternative agents. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and procedural outcomes of propofol and etomidate for RSI in the ED. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of adult patients in the ED who received propofol or etomidate for induction during RSI. The main endpoint was hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure < 60 mmHg, within the first hour of intubation. Time to intubation, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were also evaluated. Results: Two hundred and seventy five patient charts were reviewed. Of the 98 patients included, 43 patients received propofol and 55 patients received etomidate. Propofol was associated with an increased incidence of hypotension within the first hour of intubation (65.1% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in the time to intubation: ≤5 minutes (51.2% vs. 34.6%, p = 0.83). The mortality rate was 11.6% in the propofol group and 27.3% in the etomidate group (p = 0.004). There was no difference in hospital or intensive care unit length of stay between the propofol and etomidate groups (7.7 vs. 9.2 days, p = 0.23;4.2 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.31). Conclusion: Propofol was a safe and procedurally effective induction agent for RSI. Compared to etomidate, it was associated with an increased rate of hypotension within the first hour of intubation, with no difference in the percent of patients that required an intervention.展开更多
文摘Background: Etomidate is the standard induction agent used during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Etomidate shortages require providers to utilize alternative agents. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and procedural outcomes of propofol and etomidate for RSI in the ED. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of adult patients in the ED who received propofol or etomidate for induction during RSI. The main endpoint was hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure < 60 mmHg, within the first hour of intubation. Time to intubation, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were also evaluated. Results: Two hundred and seventy five patient charts were reviewed. Of the 98 patients included, 43 patients received propofol and 55 patients received etomidate. Propofol was associated with an increased incidence of hypotension within the first hour of intubation (65.1% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in the time to intubation: ≤5 minutes (51.2% vs. 34.6%, p = 0.83). The mortality rate was 11.6% in the propofol group and 27.3% in the etomidate group (p = 0.004). There was no difference in hospital or intensive care unit length of stay between the propofol and etomidate groups (7.7 vs. 9.2 days, p = 0.23;4.2 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.31). Conclusion: Propofol was a safe and procedurally effective induction agent for RSI. Compared to etomidate, it was associated with an increased rate of hypotension within the first hour of intubation, with no difference in the percent of patients that required an intervention.
