Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41123115›Full record

Observational studyActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025

Comparison of Esketamine and Propofol for Prehospital Emergency Anaesthesia in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury-A Retrospective Observational Study.

Juri Laamanen, Harry Ljungqvist, Jouni Nurmi

Abstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

3 authors.

Juri LaamanenEmergency Medicine and Services, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Harry LjungqvistEmergency Medicine and Services, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Jouni NurmiEmergency Medicine and Services, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1920-4869

Funding

Helsingin ja Uudenmaan Sairaanhoitopiiri state funding VTR TYH2022320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrehospital emergency anaesthesia and controlled ventilation are cornerstones in the treatment of traumatic brain injury patients. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the choice of anaesthetic used during the induction of anaesthesia. Esketamine has gained significant popularity, but its use has been limited in patients with traumatic brain injury due to fears of increased intracranial pressure. A protocol for anaesthesia was implemented at a Finnish helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) unit during 2015 that mandated the use of esketamine over propofol for most patients.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the differences in mortality and physiology in patients with traumatic brain injury, intubated using either propofol or esketamine. We collected data on patients treated by a single HEMS unit in Finland between January 2014 and December 2021. Our primary outcome was mortality before hospital discharge, and our secondary outcome was physiological stability, defined as the frequency of hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg or a decrease of ≥ 10%) after intubation. Controlling for confounders was done through a logistical regression analysis.

resultsWe identified a total of 366 patients, 301 of whom were treated with esketamine and 65 with propofol. There was no significant difference in mortality between the esketamine and propofol groups (odds ratio 0.598, 95% confidence interval 0.281-1.272). The decrease in blood pressure after intubation was greater in the propofol group (absolute change -37.3 vs. -12.4 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -38 to -15 mmHg), but because the initial blood pressure was also higher, both groups had similar postintubation physiology.

conclusionIn this study, we found no significant difference in mortality, but we found significant differences in the haemodynamic responses between esketamine and propofol, with a slightly favourable haemodynamic profile in patients treated with esketamine. The protocol implemented in 2015 heavily shifted the choice of anaesthetics from propofol to esketamine, but there was a distinct resurgence in propofol use during the study period. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Patients with severe head injuries can receive advance intensive care including anaesthetic drugs in the field for intubation, when prehospital teams have this competence. This retrospective analysis presents a comparison of outcomes for traumatic brain injury cases who received either propofol or esketamine in the prehospital setting, as part of a time-interrupted series where drug choice was changed. While possibly differing in circulatory effects, the two drugs were not associated with a difference in mortality before hospital discharge.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthetics, IntravenousBrain Injuries, TraumaticEmergency Medical ServicesKetaminePropofolAdultAgedFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAnesthetics, IntravenousEsketamineKetaminePropofolair ambulancesairway managementcritical careemergency medical servicesrapid sequence induction and intubation

Identifiers

PMID41123115
PMCPMC12542310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.