Intracarotid Etomidate is a Safe Alternative to Sodium Amobarbital for the Wada Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Wada procedure (the intracarotid amobarbital procedure) has been used widely to evaluate the hemispheric dominance of language and memory before temporal lobe surgery in patients with medically refractory seizures. Because of repeated shortage of sodium amobarbital, attempts have been made to find a suitable alternative to sodium amobarbital. The aim of our study was to review our experience with the use of etomidate as an alternative to sodium amobarbital for Wada testing in patients with medically refractory seizures. METHODS: After the ethics approval, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of 29 consecutive patients who underwent Wada test with etomidate. Data from a total of 50 hemispheric injections were reviewed and analyzed. This included the electroencephalographic and motor effects of etomidate injection and their time course (onset and recovery), Wada test results (language laterality and memory performance), and all adverse events during the procedure. RESULTS: Intracarotid administration of etomidate produced a predictable electroencephalographic and motor effects in all patients. The desirable effect was seen with a single bolus dose of 2 mg followed by an infusion. Shivering was the most common side effect, seen in all the patients. Successful testing was possible in nearly all patients without any major side effects. The "pass rate" of valid tests was in good accord with our previous experience with the use of sodium amobarbital. CONCLUSION: From our experience, etomidate is a safe alternative to sodium amobarbital for the Wada test for determining the hemispheric dominance for speech and in predicting the memory outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".