Anesthesiologist and Emergency Medicine Physician Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Etomidate for Intubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:The use of etomidate as an induction agent for critically ill patients is controversial. While its favorable hemodynamic profile is enviable, etomidate has been shown to cause transient adrenal suppression. The clinical consequences of transient adrenal suppression are poorly understood. Anecdotally, some clinicians advocate strongly for etomidate, while others feel it can cause significant harm. To better understand the current clinical environment with respect to single-dose etomidate use in critically ill patients, Canadian anesthesiologists and Canadian emergency medicine (EM) physicians were questioned regarding their opinions, knowledge, and preferences about etomidate use as an induction agent.Methods:Invitations to participate with the electronic survey were sent to 100 Canadian EM physicians and 260 Canadian anesthesiologists. The survey had 4 general parts: demographics, familiarity with the current literature, choice of induction agent given various clinical scenarios, and opinions on the controversy. The Pearson γ<sup>2</sup> test was used to detect whether significant differences exist between physician groups.Results:Ninety three anesthesiologists and 42 EM physicians responded for response rates of 36% and 42%. There were no self-reported differences in knowledge about etomidate properties between EM physicians and anesthesiologists. There were significant differences in etomidate use between EM physicians and anesthesiologists in general rapid sequence intubation, noncritically ill patients, and those with undifferentiated hypotension. Both EM physicians and anesthesiologists describe the current etomidate controversy as significant and not adequately resolved.Conclusion:There is no significant difference in self-reported etomidate knowledge between anesthesiologists and EM physicians; however, significant practice pattern differences exist with EM physicians using etomidate more often. Broad agreement supports future research to investigate etomidate’s impact in critically ill patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".