Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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 |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.