Evaluation of Etomidate Use and Association with Mortality Compared with Ketamine among Critically Ill Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Uncertainty remains regarding the risks associated with single-dose use of etomidate. Objectives To assess the use of etomidate in critically ill patients and compare outcomes for patients who received etomidate versus ketamine. Methods We assessed patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and were admitted to an ICU in the Premier Healthcare Database between 2008 and 2021. The exposure was receipt of etomidate on the day of IMV initiation, and the main outcome was hospital mortality. Using multivariable regression, we compared patients who received IMV within the first 2 days of hospitalization who received etomidate with propensity score–matched patients who received ketamine. We also assessed whether receipt of corticosteroids in the days after intubation modified the association between etomidate and mortality. Measurements and Main Results Of 1,689,945 patients who received IMV, nearly half (738,855; 43.7%) received etomidate. Among those who received IMV in the first 2 days of hospitalization, we established 22,273 matched pairs administered either etomidate or ketamine. In the primary analysis, receipt of etomidate was associated with greater hospital mortality relative to ketamine (21.6% vs. 18.7%; absolute risk difference, 2.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%, 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.21,1.34). This was consistent across subgroups and sensitivity analyses. We found no attenuation of the association with mortality with receipt of corticosteroids in the days after etomidate use. Conclusions Use of etomidate on the day of IMV initiation is common and associated with a higher odds of hospital mortality than use of ketamine. This finding is independent of subsequent treatment with corticosteroids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".