Advantages and Disadvantages of Etomidate Use for Intubation of Patients with Sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Etomidate is a potent imidazole hypnotic used widely in single doses in the rapid sequence intubation of critically ill patients with sepsis due to its presumed hemodynamic safety, fast onset, and short duration of action. However, the literature is conflicting regarding the hemodynamic advantages of etomidate over other induction agents, and its safety in this population is a matter of strong debate in the critical care community as the drug is associated with suppression of adrenal steroidogenesis, which can last up to 72 hours after a single dose, primarily through potent inhibition of the 11β-hydroxylase enzyme. However, the clinical impact of this adrenal suppressive effect is not certain. The use of continuous-infusion etomidate in critically ill patients was abandoned more than 20 years ago due to reports of increased mortality. Nevertheless, mortality data of single-dose etomidate are still controversial, with no strong evidence of benefit over other agents and a tendency toward harm (keeping in mind the limitations of the available literature). Proponents of single-dose etomidate use in patients with sepsis suggest that the increased mortality associated with etomidate is merely a reflection of the patients' severity of illness and not related to the drug itself, whereas others believe that the drug causes true harm and increases mortality in this population. In view of the lack of a clear clinical advantage of etomidate over other agents used in rapid sequence intubation, it would be prudent to favor other agents until further conclusive evidence of etomidate safety is available in critically ill patients with sepsis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".