ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate Versus Ketamine for Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a commonly used technique for critically ill patients requiring emergency intubation, and the choice of induction agent is crucial for minimizing peri-intubation morbidity and maintaining hemodynamic stability. The most commonly used induction agents are etomidate and ketamine, although controversy remains about their effectiveness and safety. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate versus ketamine for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and May 2026 were systematically searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect. The included studies compared etomidate with ketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation in critically ill adults. We analyzed data with RevMan 5.4 and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models and calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seven RCTs involving 5234 patients were included in the final analysis. No significant difference was observed between etomidate and ketamine regarding 28-day mortality (RR 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.10; p=0.84), cardiac arrest (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.62-1.34; p = 0.64), failed intubation (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.68-1.76; p=0.71), or vasopressor requirement (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.94-1.72; p=0.13). Sensitivity analyses suggested possible hemodynamic differences between the two agents, which should be interpreted cautiously, and etomidate was relatively cardiovascularly stable in some analyses. Overall, etomidate and ketamine showed similar efficacy and safety for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two agents in mortality, cardiac arrest, failed intubation, or vasopressor use. Thus, clinicians should choose the induction agent on a case-by-case basis, based on patient, hemodynamic, and clinician-specific factors. Randomized trials in selected critically ill patient populations should be conducted on a larger scale.
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.