Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41396604›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2025

Ketamine, Etomidate, and Mortality in Emergency Department Intubations.

Ian Ward A Maia, Sérgio R R Decker, Lucas Oliveira J E Silva, Rafael von Hellmann, Julio C G Alencar, Ludhmila Abrahao Hajjar, Julia M Dorn de Carvalho, Daniel F Pedrollo, Caio G Nogueira, Natalia Mansur P Figueiredo and 28 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical Use of Endotracheal Intubation Without Neuromuscular Blockade: The Current Stage of Knowledge.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

38 authors.

Ian Ward A MaiaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Sérgio R R DeckerOutcomes Research Lab, MOVE, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lucas Oliveira J E SilvaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Rafael von HellmannDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Julio C G AlencarUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Bauru, Bauru, Brazil.
Ludhmila Abrahao HajjarDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Julia M Dorn de CarvalhoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel F PedrolloDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Caio G NogueiraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Metropolitano Odilon Behrens, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Natalia Mansur P FigueiredoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Metropolitano Odilon Behrens, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Carlos Henrique MirandaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Danilo MartinsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Thiago D BaumgratzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Bruno BergeschDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Regional de Sao Jose Doutor Homero de Miranda Gomes, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Osmar ColleoniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Sao Lucas da Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Juliana ZanettiniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital de Pronto Socorro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Ana Paula FreitasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital de Pronto Socorro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Renato TambelliDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Marilia, Marilia, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Cristina CostaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Augusto de Oliveira Camargo, Indaiatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Wilsterman CorreiaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Regional Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Rafael G de MariaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Santo Antonio, Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Ubirajara A V FilhoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Andre P WeberDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Bruno Born, Lajeado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Vinicius da Silva CastroUnidade de Pronto Atendimento de Lajeado, Lajeado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Carlos Fernando D DornellesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Barbara S TabachDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Nicole P MoreiraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.
Patricia L GasparDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.
Hélio P GuimarãesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Gabriela StanzaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Thiago F GavaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Aidan MullanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Caitlin S BrownDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Fernanda BellolioDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Molly M JefferyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Otavio T RanzaniDataHealth Lab, Institut de Recerca Sant Pau (IR SANT PAU), Barcelona, Spain.
Bruno A M P BesenIntensive Care Department, IDOR Education and Research Institute, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brazilian Airway Registry Cooperation (BARCO) group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) of critically ill adults may affect clinical outcomes. Although ketamine and etomidate are frequently used for RSI, their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. Objective: To compare the safety of etomidate vs ketamine for emergency RSI in critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a target trial emulation with observational data collected between March 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024, from 18 emergency departments across Brazil, with data from the Brazilian Airway Registry Cooperation. Adults who underwent RSI and received either etomidate or ketamine as a sole hypnotic agent were included; those with preintubation cardiac arrest or immediate postintubation transfer were excluded. Exposure: Administration of etomidate or ketamine as the induction agent for RSI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 7-day in-hospital mortality, first-attempt intubation success, and major adverse events (new hemodynamic instability, severe hypoxemia, and cardiac arrest) within 30 minutes after intubation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results: Among 1810 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 50-74 years]; 1048 men [57.9%]), 514 received ketamine and 1296 received etomidate. The median shock index was higher in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (0.81 [IQR, 0.65-1.01] vs 0.76 [IQR, 0.59-0.99]), and preintubation vasopressor use was more common in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (191 of 514 [37.2%] vs 391 of 1296 [30.2%]). Weighted 28-day mortality was higher with etomidate than ketamine (60.5% [95% CI, 57.2%-63.8%] vs 54.4% [95% CI, 45.0%-63.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; RD, 7.6% [95% CI, 2.0%-13.3%]). Seven-day mortality was also higher with etomidate than ketamine (35.2% [95% CI, 32.0%-38.3%] vs 30.1% [95% CI, 23.5%-36.7%]; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.04-1.35]). New hemodynamic instability within 30 minutes after intubation was more frequent with ketamine (24.2% [95% CI, 20.4%-28.0%] vs 18.9% [95% CI, 16.7%-21.0%]; RR, 0.78 [0.64-0.95]). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of critically ill adults undergoing RSI, etomidate use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality at 7 and 28 days compared with ketamine. These findings highlight the need for definitive randomized clinical trials to compare both agents.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalEtomidateHypnotics and SedativesIntubation, IntratrachealKetamineRapid Sequence Induction and IntubationAdultAgedBrazilCohort StudiesCritical IllnessFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedEtomidateHypnotics and SedativesKetamine

Identifiers

PMID41396604
PMCPMC12706683

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.