Etomidate as an Induction Agent in Septic Patients: Red Flags or False Alarms?

Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate’s effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data

Circulatory Support with Venoarterial ECMO Unsuccessful in Aiding Endogenous Diltiazem Clearance after Overdose

Introduction. In cardiovascular collapse from diltiazem poisoning, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may offer circulatory support sufficient to preserve endogenous hepatic drug clearance. Little is known about patient outcomes and diltiazem toxicokinetics in this setting. Case Report. A 36-year-old woman with a history of myocardial bridging syndrome presented with chest pain for which she self-medicated with 2.4 g of sustained release diltiazem over the course of 8 hours. Hemodynamics and mentation were satisfactory on presentation, but precipitously deteriorated after ICU transfer. She was given fluids, calcium, vasopressors, glucagon, high-dose insulin, and lipid emulsion. Due to circulatory collapse and multiorgan failure including ischemic hepatopathy, she underwent transvenous pacing and emergent initiation of venoarterial ECMO. The peak diltiazem level was 13150 ng/mL (normal 100–200 ng/mL) and it remained elevated at 6340 ng/mL at hour 90. Unfortunately, the patient developed multiple complications which resulted in her death on ICU day 9. Conclusion. This case describes the unsuccessful use of ECMO for diltiazem intoxication. Although past reports suggest that support with ECMO may facilitate endogenous diltiazem clearance, it may be dependent on preserved hepatic function at the time of cannulation, a factor not present in this case

Etomidate as an induction agent in septic patients: red flags or false alarms?

Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate's effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(2):161-172