NCT00441792

The Effect of Etomidate on Patient Outcomes After Single Bolus Doses

A Randomized Trial of Etomidate Versus Midazolam for Intubation of Patients With Sepsis.

• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 122 (actual)
• Sponsor: Advocate Hospital System · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The primary aim is to determine the difference in hospital length of stay between septic patients given etomidate and those given midazolam for induction during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department. To achieve this aim we plan to perform a prospective randomized trial measuring the length of stay of patients meeting sepsis criteria and requiring intubation. The investigators will compare in-hospital mortality rates between patients given etomidate and patients given midazolam for induction. In addition to hospital length of stay, secondary endpoints between the two groups will include length of stay in the intensive care unit, death within 48 hours of admission, and total number of days intubated. Research Hypothesis: In adult patients presenting to the emergency department with sepsis and requiring rapid sequence intubation, the length of stay of patients given etomidate will be greater than that of patients given the alternative agent midazolam for induction.

Detailed description

Rationale: Although the use of the drug etomidate for continuous sedation in mechanically ventilated patients was found to have detrimental effects on patient mortality shortly after its introduction into clinical practice, etomidate continues to be widely used as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation. Recent data have called into question the safety of using etomidate for even a single bolus in patients at risk of adrenal insufficiency, emphasizing the fact that single bolus doses of etomidate cause measurable adrenal suppression, and consequently may cause an increase in vasopressor requirements and hospital length of stay. Alternative FDA-approved induction agents, such as midazolam, are claimed by many authors to be safer than etomidate; however, no studies have formally compared these agents. Research Hypothesis: The investigators hypothesize that in critically ill adult patients presenting to the emergency department with sepsis and requiring rapid sequence intubation, the hospital length of stay of patients given etomidate will be increased compared to patients given midazolam for induction. Specific Aims: The specific aim is to determine the difference in hospital length of stay between septic patients given etomidate and those given midazolam for induction during rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department. The investigators plan to compare the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, and duration of intubation by performing a prospective, randomized, trial of critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department with sepsis requiring intubation. The investigators will also compare the mortality rates in these two groups while controlling for severity of illness and the use of steroids while hospitalized. Significance: If the use of etomidate to induce anesthesia prior to intubation is found to adversely affect the length of stay of septic patients, a reduction in the length of stay in such patients might be achieved by using alternative agents for induction. The current widespread use of an induction agent that may adversely affect the length of stay of septic patients has significant implications for patient management.

Conditions

• Sepsis
• Trauma

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DRUG	Etomidate	Etomidate at induction dose based on weight
DRUG	midazolam	Midazolam at induction dose based on weight

Timeline

• Start date: 2007-10-01
• Primary completion: 2010-12-01
• Completion: 2010-12-01
• First posted: 2007-03-01
• Last updated: 2012-04-11
• Results posted: 2012-04-06

Locations

1 site across 1 country: United States