Trial reportGut and liver2019
Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages.
Trial report in Gut and liver, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a retrospective exploratory analysis and meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Various Drug Interventions to Prevent Etomidate-Induced Myoclonus: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Beyond adrenal suppression: a comprehensive post-marketing safety profile of etomidate from real world data.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of remimazolam with fentanyl vs midazolam with fentanyl for sedation in screening colonoscopy: Randomized controlled study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- The need to monitor emerging issues in etomidate usage: the misuse or abuse potential.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Review
- Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Etomidate affects spatial learning and memory and neuronal apoptosis of rats via MAPK/ERK pathway.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Discovery of the EL-0052 as a potential anesthetic drug.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Application of etomidate and propofol mixture in hematoma removal in patients with intracranial epidural hematoma.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. Results: Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007). Conclusions: Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.