2008
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.143.1.62
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Increased Risk of Adrenal Insufficiency Following Etomidate Exposure in Critically Injured Patients

Abstract: Background: Timely diagnosis and treatment of adrenal insufficiency (AI) dramatically reduces mortality in trauma patients. We sought to identify risk factors and populations with a high risk of developing AI.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
46
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The absolute risk of AI associated with versus without etomidate was 69 versus 17% (''pc'' D. Annane, P \ 0.001, Table 1). Adrenal insufficiency in the ICU was greater with etomidate than comparators in the studies of: Mohammed [23] (n = 152, septic shock, 76 vs. 51%, P = 0.008); Kim [24] (n = 65, septic shock, 84 vs. 48%, P = 0.003); Cotton [25] (n = 137, trauma patients, 68 vs. 48%, P = 0.02); Malerba [26] (n = 62, mechanical ventilation for [24 h, 68 vs. 24%, P = 0.001); and Cohan [27] (n = 79, traumatic brain injury, 60 vs. 33%, P = 0.049 by univariate but not multivariate analysis). AI was not increased with etomidate versus comparators in: De Jong [28] (n = 405, prolonged hypotension, 60 vs. 57%, ''pc'' M.F.C.…”
Section: Randomized Controlled Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The absolute risk of AI associated with versus without etomidate was 69 versus 17% (''pc'' D. Annane, P \ 0.001, Table 1). Adrenal insufficiency in the ICU was greater with etomidate than comparators in the studies of: Mohammed [23] (n = 152, septic shock, 76 vs. 51%, P = 0.008); Kim [24] (n = 65, septic shock, 84 vs. 48%, P = 0.003); Cotton [25] (n = 137, trauma patients, 68 vs. 48%, P = 0.02); Malerba [26] (n = 62, mechanical ventilation for [24 h, 68 vs. 24%, P = 0.001); and Cohan [27] (n = 79, traumatic brain injury, 60 vs. 33%, P = 0.049 by univariate but not multivariate analysis). AI was not increased with etomidate versus comparators in: De Jong [28] (n = 405, prolonged hypotension, 60 vs. 57%, ''pc'' M.F.C.…”
Section: Randomized Controlled Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…); Mohammed[23] (n = 152, 63 vs. 55%); Kim[24] (n = 65, 32 vs. 43%); Cotton[25] (n = 137, 18 vs. 26%, ''pc'' B.A. Cotton); De Jong [28] (n = 405, 17 vs. 23%, ''pc'' De Jong); Riche [29] (n = 116, 36 vs. 47%) ''pc'' F. Riche); Den Brinker [30, 31] (n = 31, 30 vs. 12.5%); Ray and McKeown [33] (n = 159, ICU with septic shock, 69 vs. 60%); or Tekwani [34] (n = 106, ICU with sepsis, 38 vs. 44%).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certainly, etomidate impairs cortisol response to corticotrophin in critically ill patients. [28][29][30][31][32][33] However, corticotrophin stimulation tests are unreliable in critical illness, 12 and the clinical consequences of such suppression are not clear. 5,9,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]26 We found that etomidate was chosen more frequently than thiopental or propofol for sicker patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Etomidat, als Einmaldosis bei Narkoseeinleitung, wurde als einer der wenigen modifizierbaren Risikofaktoren für die Entwicklung einer Nebennierenrindeninsuffizienz bei kritisch kranken Traumapatienten identifiziert [22]. Etomidat war mit einem erhöhten Risiko für ein "acute respiratory distress syndrome" (ARDS) bzw.…”
Section: Medikamente Zur Narkoseeinleitungunclassified