Dataset Information

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

ABSTRACT: Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol. This was a retrospective before-after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents. One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate: 18.6% vs. propofol: 14.0%, p = 0.031). Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.

SUBMITTER: Weiss B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8269440 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

Weiss Björn B Schiefenhövel Fridtjof F Grunow Julius J JJ Krüger Michael M Spies Claudia D CD Menk Mario M Kruppa Jochen J Grubitzsch Herko H Sander Michael M Treskatsch Sascha S Balzer Felix F

Journal of clinical medicine 20210629 13

<h4>Background</h4>Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective before-after trial ( ...[more]

PMID: 34209919

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOlder patients may benefit from the hemodynamic stability of etomidate for general anesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether the potential for adrenocortical suppression with etomidate may increase morbidity.ObjectiveTo test the primary hypothesis that etomidate vs propofol for anesthesia does not increase in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (Etomidate vs Propofol for In-hospital Complications [EPIC]) was conducted between August 15, 2017, and November 20, 2020, at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Participants were aged 65 to 80 years and were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive either etomidate or propofol for general anesthesia by target-controlled infusion.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was a composite of major in-hospital postoperative complications (with a noninferiority margin of 3%). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic measurements; postoperative adrenocortical hormone levels; self-reported postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting; and mortality at postoperative months 6 and 12.ResultsA total of 1944 participants were randomized, of whom 1917 (98.6%) completed the trial. Patients were randomized to the etomidate group (n = 967; mean [SD] age, 70.3 [4.0] years; 578 men [59.8%]) or propofol group (n = 950; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [4.2] years; 533 men [56.1%]). The primary end point occurred in 90 of 967 patients (9.3%) in the etomidate group and 83 of 950 patients (8.7%) in the propofol group, which met the noninferiority criterion (risk difference [RD], 0.6%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 2.7%; P = .66). In the etomidate group, mean (SD) cortisol levels were lower at the end of surgery (4.8 [2.7] μg/dL vs 6.1 [3.4] μg/dL; P < .001), and mean (SD) aldosterone levels were lower at the end of surgery (0.13 [0.05] ng/dL vs 0.15 [0.07] ng/dL; P = .02) and on postoperative day 1 (0.14 [0.04] ng/dL vs 0.16 [0.06] ng/dL; P = .001) compared with the propofol group. No difference in mortality was observed between the etomidate and propofol groups at postoperative month 6 (2.2% vs 3.0%; RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%) and 12 (3.3% vs 3.9%; RD, -0.6%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 1.0%). More patients had pneumonia in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (2.0% vs 0.3%; RD, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 2.8%; P = .001). Results were consistent in the per-protocol population.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this trial showed that, compared with propofol, etomidate anesthesia did not increase overall major in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients, although it induced transient adrenocortical suppression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02910206.

Project description:BackgroundStudies indicate that patients can be "seeded" with their own cancer cells during oncologic surgery and that the immune response to these circulating cancer cells might influence the risk of cancer recurrence. Preliminary data from animal studies and some retrospective analyses suggest that anesthetic technique might affect the immune response during surgery and hence the risk of cancer recurrence. In 2015, experts called for prospective scientific inquiry into whether anesthetic technique used in cancer resection surgeries affects cancer-related outcomes such as recurrence and mortality. Therefore, we designed a pragmatic phase 3 multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) called General Anesthetics in Cancer Resection (GA-CARES).MethodsAfter clinical trial registration and institutional review board approval, patients providing written informed consent were enrolled at five sites in New York (NY) State. Eligible patients were adults with known or suspected cancer undergoing one of eight oncologic surgeries having a high risk of cancer recurrence. Exclusion criteria included known or suspected history of malignant hyperthermia or hypersensitivity to either propofol or volatile anesthetic agents. Patients were randomized (1:1) stratified by center and surgery type using REDCap to receive either propofol or volatile agent for maintenance of general anesthesia (GA). This pragmatic trial, which seeks to assess the potential impact of anesthetic type in "real world practice", did not standardize any aspect of patient care. However, potential confounders, e.g., use of neuroaxial anesthesia, were recorded to confirm the balance between study arms. Assuming a 5% absolute difference in 2-year overall survival rates (85% vs 90%) between study arms (primary endpoint, minimum 2-year follow-up), power using a two-sided log-rank test with type I error of 0.05 (no planned interim analyses) was calculated to be 97.4% based on a target enrollment of 1800 subjects. Data sources include the National Death Index (gold standard for vital status in the USA), NY Cancer Registry, and electronic harvesting of data from electronic medical records (EMR), with minimal manual data abstraction/data entry.DiscussionEnrollment has been completed (n = 1804) and the study is in the follow-up phase. This unfunded, pragmatic trial, uses a novel approach for data collection focusing on electronic sources.Trial registrationRegistered (NCT03034096) on January 27, 2017, prior to consent of the first patient on January 31, 2017.

Project description:ObjectiveEstablishing a convolutional neural network model for the recognition of characteristic raw electroencephalogram (EEG) signals is crucial for monitoring consciousness levels and guiding anesthetic drug administration.MethodsThis trial was conducted from December 2023 to March 2024. A total of 40 surgery patients were randomly divided into either a propofol group (1% propofol injection, 10 mL: 100 mg) (P group) or a propofol-etomidate combination group (1% propofol injection, 10 mL: 100 mg, and 0.2% etomidate injection, 10 mL: 20 mg, mixed at a 2:1 volume ratio) (EP group). In the P group, target-controlled infusion (TCI) was employed for sedation induction, with an initial effect site concentration set at 5-6 μg/mL. The EP group received an intravenous push with a dosage of 0.2 mL/kg. Six consciousness-related EEG features were extracted from both groups and analyzed using four prediction models: support vector machine (SVM), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), artificial neural network (ANN), and one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D CNN). The performance of the models was evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.ResultsThe power spectral density (94%) and alpha/beta ratio (72%) demonstrated higher accuracy as indicators for assessing consciousness. The classification accuracy of the 1D CNN model for anesthesia-induced unconsciousness (97%) surpassed that of the SVM (83%), GNB (81%), and ANN (83%) models, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Furthermore, the mean and mean difference ± standard error of the primary power values for the EP and P groups during the induced period were as follows: delta (23.85 and 16.79, 7.055 ± 0.817, p < 0.001), theta (10.74 and 8.743, 1.995 ± 0.7045, p < 0.02), and total power (24.31 and 19.72, 4.588 ± 0.7107, p < 0.001).ConclusionLarge slow-wave oscillations, power spectral density, and the alpha/beta ratio are effective indicators of changes in consciousness during intravenous anesthesia with a propofol-etomidate combination. These indicators can aid anesthesiologists in evaluating the depth of anesthesia and adjusting dosages accordingly. The 1D CNN model, which incorporates consciousness-related EEG features, represents a promising tool for assessing the depth of anesthesia.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html.

Project description:BackgroundPostinduction hypotension (PIHO) is a hemodynamic abnormality commonly observed during the induction of general anesthesia. Etomidate is considered a safer drug for the induction of anesthesia because it has only minor adverse effects on the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. Recent evidence indicates that the novel benzodiazepine remimazolam has minimal inhibitory effects on the circulation and respiration. However, the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus etomidate in the induction of anesthesia are unclear.ObjectiveTo further understand the potential of remimazolam in anesthesia induction, it is necessary to design a meta-analysis to compare its effects versus the classic safe anesthetic etomidate. The aim of this study is to determine which drug has more stable hemodynamics and a lower incidence of PIHO. Our study will also yield data on sedation efficiency, time to loss of consciousness, time to awakening, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting with the two drugs.MethodsWe plan to search the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases from the date of their creation until March 31, 2025. The language is limited to English and Chinese. The search terms are "randomized controlled trials," "etomidate," and "remimazolam." The incidence of PIHO is the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes include depth of anesthesia after induction, sedation success rate, time to loss of consciousness, hemodynamic profiles, recovery time, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Reviews, meta-analyses, case studies, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries will not be included. The heterogeneity of the results will be evaluated by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. RevMan software and Stata software will be used for data analysis. We will evaluate the quality of included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The confidence of the evidence will be assessed through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluations system.ResultsThe protocol was registered in the international PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registry in November 2023. As of June 2024, we have performed a preliminary article search and retrieval for further review. The review and analyses are expected to be completed in March 2025. We expect to submit manuscripts for peer review by the end of June 2025.ConclusionsBy synthesizing the available evidence and comparing remimazolam and etomidate, we hope to provide valuable insights into the selection of anesthesia-inducing drugs to reduce the incidence of PIHO and improve patient prognosis.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023463120; https://tinyurl.com/333jb8bm.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/55948.

Dataset Information

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

Publications

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets