Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34209919›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Infectious Complications after Etomidate vs. Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Cardiac Surgery-Results of a Retrospective, before-after Study.

Björn Weiss, Fridtjof Schiefenhövel, Julius J Grunow, Michael Krüger, Claudia D Spies, Mario Menk, Jochen Kruppa, Herko Grubitzsch, Michael Sander, Sascha Treskatsch and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Björn WeissDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3139-595X
Fridtjof SchiefenhövelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Julius J GrunowDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Michael KrügerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Claudia D SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Mario MenkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Jochen KruppaInstitute of Health, Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Herko GrubitzschDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8060-8507
Michael SanderDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Gieβen, Justus-Liebig University Gieβen, 35390 Gieβen, Germany.
Sascha TreskatschDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Benjamin Franklin), Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0549-7680
Felix BalzerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEtomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol.

methodsThis was a retrospective before-after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents.

resultsOne-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%,

conclusionOur study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.

Indexed as

cardiac anesthesiaetomidateinfectionpropofolsepsis

Identifiers

PMID34209919
PMCPMC8269440
OpenAlexW3176401238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.