SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2026
Induction agents for emergency tracheal intubation in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemodynamic stability should not re-establish etomidate as the default induction agent.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEtomidate, ketamine, and propofol are all used as induction agents for emergency tracheal intubation in critically ill adults but it remains uncertain which agent should be preferable.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase (inception to December 2025) for randomized controlled trials comparing etomidate, ketamine, propofol, or ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) for emergency or rapid sequence intubation in critically ill adults. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using the frequentist framework. The primary outcome was short-term mortality (28-30 day, or ICU/in-hospital mortality when unavailable). Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular collapse, post-induction hypotension, vasopressor use, first-pass intubation success, and peri-intubation cardiac arrest. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the CINeMA framework.
resultsNine trials (4,672 patients, four treatments) were included. Ketamine and etomidate probably result in similar mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.16; [Formula: see text] = 30%; moderate certainty). Evidence for other mortality comparisons was very uncertain: ketamine vs propofol (OR 1.53, 0.80-2.93; 1 trial; low certainty) and etomidate vs propofol (OR 0.63, 0.32-1.24; indirect only; very low certainty). Compared with etomidate, ketamine probably increases cardiovascular collapse (OR 1.44, 1.20-1.71; moderate certainty) and may increase post-induction hypotension (OR 1.34, 1.07-1.68; low certainty) and peri-intubation vasopressor use (OR 1.45, 1.21-1.74; low certainty). There was probably little or no difference in first-pass intubation success or cardiac arrest.
conclusionsEtomidate and ketamine probably result in similar mortality, but confidence intervals are compatible with clinically important differences in either direction-ketamine probably causes more peri-intubation hemodynamic instability. Beyond one trial, no randomized evidence exists for propofol in emergency intubation of critically ill adults.
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.