MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404577690 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006515

Ketamine Versus Etomidate for Rapid Sequence Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2024· review· en· W4404577690 on OpenAlexaff
Alisha Greer, Mark Hewitt, Parsa T. Khazaneh, Begüm Ergan, Lisa Burry, Matthew W. Semler, Bram Rochwerg, Sameer Sharif

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsImpactSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtomidateMedicineMeta-analysisIntubationRandomized controlled trialKetamineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of ketamine and etomidate as induction agents to facilitate emergent endotracheal intubation. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 3, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ketamine to etomidate to facilitate emergent endotracheal intubation in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We pre-registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42023472450). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included seven RCTs ( n = 2384 patients). Based on pooled analysis, compared with etomidate, ketamine probably increases hemodynamic instability in the peri-intubation period (relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; moderate certainty) but probably decreases the need for initiation of continuous infusion vasopressors (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; moderate certainty) and results in less adrenal suppression (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.66; moderate certainty). Ketamine probably has no effect on successful intubation on the first attempt (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05; moderate certainty) or organ dysfunction measured as the maximum Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score during the first 3 days in ICU (mean difference, 0.55 SOFA points lower; 95% CI, 1.12 lower to 0.03 higher; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.21; low certainty) when compared with etomidate. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with etomidate, ketamine probably results in more hemodynamic instability during the peri-intubation period and appears to have no effect on successful intubation on the first attempt or mortality. However, ketamine results in decreased need for the initiation of vasopressor use and decreases adrenal suppression compared with etomidate.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.127 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207