ReviewCureus2026
Ketamine Versus Etomidate for Rapid Sequence Intubation in Critically Ill Adults: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients requires rapid induction while minimizing hemodynamic instability. Etomidate has traditionally been favored for its cardiovascular stability, whereas ketamine is increasingly used due to its sympathomimetic properties and presumed hemodynamic advantages; however, comparative data on survival and clinically meaningful outcomes remain inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of ketamine versus etomidate for emergency intubation in critically ill adults. A comprehensive search of major databases was performed from inception through the most recent available date, including randomized and observational studies directly comparing the two agents. The primary outcome was 30-day survival, and secondary outcomes included first-pass intubation success, post-intubation hypotension, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, vasopressor-free days, and ventilator-free days. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. A total of 25 comparative studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in 30-day survival between ketamine and etomidate (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.83-1.21). First-pass success rates were similar (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.05). Ketamine was associated with a significantly higher risk of post-intubation hypotension compared with etomidate (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03-1.69). No significant differences were observed in post-intubation SOFA scores (MD: -0.11, 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.07), vasopressor-free days (MD: -0.03 days, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.31), or ventilator-free days (MD: -0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.15). Overall, ketamine and etomidate demonstrated comparable short-term survival and procedural success, although ketamine use was associated with increased post-intubation hypotension, supporting individualized induction agent selection based on patient hemodynamic profile and clinical context.
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.