Increased incidence of clinical hypotension with etomidate compared to ketamine for intubation in septic patients: A propensity matched analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared the incidence of clinical hypotension between ketamine and etomidate within a 24 hour period following endotracheal intubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective propensity-matched cohort study included septic patients admitted to our medical intensive care unit who received either etomidate or ketamine for intubation. Clinical hypotension was defined as any one of the following: mean arterial pressure (MAP) decrease >40% compared to baseline and MAP <70 mmHg, MAP <60 mmHg, initiation of a vasopressor, or increase to >30% of the initial vasopressor dose. RESULTS: Patients were matched based on propensity scores determined by demographics and baseline characteristics. A total of 384 (200 etomidate and 184 ketamine) patients were included for analysis with 230 patients (115 in each group) matched. Clinical hypotension was less prevalent in patients who received ketamine as compared to etomidate [51.3% vs. 73% (odds ratio=0.39, 95% confidence interval=0.22-0.67, P=.001]. The etomidate group experienced significantly lower MAPs at time periods 6.1-12 hours (65.1 mmHg vs. 69.3 mmHg, P=.01) and 12.1-24 hours (63.9 mmHg vs. 68.4 mmHg, P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine was associated with a lower incidence of clinical hypotension within the 24 hour period following endotracheal intubation in septic patients.

Perceived safety and efficacy of neuromuscular blockers for acute respiratory distress syndrome among medical intensive care unit practitioners: A multicenter survey.

PURPOSE: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The purpose of this survey is to describe providers' knowledge and perceived efficacy and safety of NMBAs in patients with ARDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter survey of medical intensive care unit intensivists, fellows, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician's assistants (PAs), and pharmacists at 5 tertiary care centers between July 2012 and May 2013. RESULTS: A total of 335 surveys were sent to providers, with a 47% response rate. Ninety-eight percent of providers correctly identified that NMBAs lack anxiolytic and analgesic properties. The effect of end-organ damage on NMBA clearance was less commonly identified by NPs/PAs for both hepatic (P=.0077) and renal (P=.0272) dysfunction compared with physicians. More NP/PAs identified the association of consciousness with the use of NMBAs than physicians (P=.047). Forty-two percent of prescribers reported always or frequently using continuous-infusion NMBAs in patients with severe ARDS, with 89% initiating NMBAs because of ventilator dyssynchrony. Prescribers perceived continuous NMBAs to be more effective than inhaled prostaglandins (74% vs 56%) in severe ARDS but less safe (45% vs 84%). Train of 4 was identified by 54% of prescribers as their primary method for titration. CONCLUSION: Providers are knowledgeable about NMBAs, but educational opportunities exist. Perceptions about the efficacy and safety of NMBAs varied among prescribers, and inconsistencies existed in the prioritization of management strategies for ARDS.

Intensive Care Nurses' Knowledge About Use of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in Patients With Respiratory Failure.

BACKGROUND: The recent increase in use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is set against a backdrop of concerns about harm associated with use of these high-risk drugs. Bedside nurses play a pivotal role in the safe and effective use of these agents. OBJECTIVE: To describe critical care nurses' knowledge of the therapeutic properties, adverse effects, and monitoring parameters associated with NMBAs. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter survey of medical intensive care unit nurses between July 2012 and May 2013. The web-based survey instrument was designed, pretested, and administered under the direction of a multidisciplinary group of individuals. RESULTS: Responses from 160 nurses (22% of eligible nurses) were analyzed. Most respondents were able to identify NMBAs correctly as nonanalgesic (93%) and nonanxiolytic (83%). The perceived durations of action of NMBAs varied widely, and few nurses were familiar with patient-specific considerations related to drug elimination. Most (70%) recognized the independent associations between NMBAs and footdrop, muscle breakdown, and corneal ulceration. Pressure ulcers and a history of neuromuscular disease were the characteristics of patients perceived to most heighten the risk of NMBA use. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care nurses are knowledgeable about the importance of concurrent analgesia and sedation during use of NMBAs. Routes of elimination, duration of action, and adverse effects were less commonly known and represent areas for focused education and quality improvement surrounding use of NMBAs in the intensive care unit.