

SGEM#356: Drugs are Gonna Knock You Out – Etomidate vs. Ketamine for Emergency Endotracheal Intubation
Jan 15, 2022
19:01
Date: January 16th, 2022
Reference: Matchett, G. et al. Etomidate versus ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2021
Guest Skeptic: Missy Carter, former City of Bremerton Firefighter/Paramedic, currently a professor of Emergency Medical Services at Tacoma Community College’s paramedic program. Missy is currently working in a community emergency department as a physician assistant and recently accepted a critical care position in Tacoma Washington.
Case: You respond to a rapid response on the floor for a 58-year-old woman in septic shock who is requiring emergent rapid sequence intubation (RSI). As you prepare to intubate the pharmacist asks if you would prefer ketamine or etomidate for induction in this patient.
Background: We have covered the issue of intubation multiple times on the SGEM. This has included looking at supraglottic airways for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (SGEM#247), video vs. direct laryngoscopy (SGEM#95), tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrests (SGEM#197), apneic oxygenation (SGEM#186) and confirming intubation with POCUS (SGEM#249). One thing we have not covered is the choice of induction agent for intubation.
There has been much debate regarding the use of etomidate verses ketamine for induction in the critically ill [1-4]. A 2009 randomized control trial conducted in French ICUs supported the use of ketamine in this patient population [5]. Both agents are considered hemodynamically stable, but any induction agent may precipitate shock in the critically ill.
There is some conflicting evidence as to which agent is preferred for patients who are at high risk of peri intubation complications. Historically there has been concern about adrenal insufficiency caused by etomidate being harmful for patients with sepsis but this has not been shown to cause increased mortality in the literature [6, 7].
Ketamine has emerged as a reasonable alternative but in recent years there has been concern about increased cardiovascular collapse with ketamine especially in those with sepsis or a high shock index [1, 8].
Clinical Question: Which induction agent has a better day 7 survival for critically ill patients requiring emergency endotracheal intubation, ketamine or etomidate?
Reference: Matchett, G. et al. Etomidate versus ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2021
Population: Adults 18 years of age and older in need of emergency endotracheal (ET) intubation
Exclusions: Children, pregnant patients, patients needing ET intubation without sedation or allergic to one of the agents being used
Intervention: Ketamine 1-2mg/kg IV
Comparison: Etomidate 0.2-0.3mg/kg IV
Outcome:
Primary Outcome: 7-day survival
Secondary Outcomes: 28-day survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, need for vasopressor use, SOFA scores and an assessment of a new diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency by the treating critical care teams.
Trial: Prospective, randomized, parallel-assignment, open-label, single-center trial (NCT02643381)
Authors’ Conclusions: While the primary outcome of Day 7 survival was greater in patients randomized to ketamine, there was no significant difference in survival by Day 28.”
Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials:
The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. No
The patients were adequately randomized. Yes
The randomization process was concealed. Yes
The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes
The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). Unsure
The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Yes
All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were unaware of group allocation. No
All groups were treated equally except for the inte...