MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

737: USE AND SAFETY OF ETOMIDATE FOR INTUBATION OF CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN

2023· article· en· W4389729340 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Ducharme‐Crevier, Céline Thibault, Guillaume Émériaud, Natalie Napolitano, Robyn Wing, Mónica Prieto, Amy Romer, Aline Branca, Justine Shults, Vinay Nadkarni, Akira Nishisaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtomidateCritically illIntubationIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Etomidate is commonly regarded as a safe medication for tracheal intubation (TI) in children. Recently, etomidate safety has been challenged in adults. This study aimed to better characterize the use of etomidate for TI in critically ill children and assess its safety. Methods: We evaluated the association between induction agents and safety outcomes in a prospectively collected QI database (National Emergency Airway Registry for Children: NEAR4KIDS) from 2013-2022. Evaluated outcomes included severe hemodynamic TI-associated events (TIAEs) (cardiac arrest, hypotension requiring intervention, and arrhythmia), severe hypoxia (SpO2 decline >20%), and first-attempt success in children receiving etomidate vs. other induction agents. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the independent associations between etomidate and these outcomes while adjusting for location, patient age/category, shock, difficult airway, apneic oxygenation, device, and neuromuscular blockade use. Results: A total of 35,401 TIs [etomidate 1,055 (3.0%), other agents 34,346 (97.0%)] were included. Etomidate was more commonly used in the ED compared to the PICU and CICU (26.4% vs. 2.1% and 2.0% of TIs, respectively) and in older children [5.7% (8-17y) vs. 3.0% (1-7 y) vs. 1.6% (0-1y)], both p< 0.001. Etomidate was used in 13.9% of TIs performed for trauma, 5.2% for neurological impairment, 2.8% for shock, 2.8% for cardiac failure, and 1.3% for respiratory failure. In children receiving etomidate, the most common TI indications were neurological (31.9%) and respiratory (19.3%) failures. Etomidate was associated with less hypoxia in univariate (2.2% vs. 3.1%, p< 0.001) and multivariable analysis (OR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97, p=0.02). Etomidate was not associated with more severe hemodynamic TIAEs in univariable (2.8% vs. 3.0%, p=0.66) and multivariable analysis (OR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.7-1.3, p=0.64). Finally, etomidate was associated with higher first-attempt success in univariable (75.7% vs. 71.4%, p=0.002) and multivariable analysis (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02, 1.37, p=0.03). Conclusions: Children receiving etomidate experienced less hypoxia but did not have fewer severe hemodynamic TIAEs than those receiving other agents. Etomidate appears to be a safe induction agent in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207