Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T07:19:25.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Thiopental vs. Etomidate for Rapid Sequence Intubation in Aeromedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Charles J. Sonday
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Robert Higgins
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Jennifer Axelband*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency, St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Jeanne Jacoby
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency, St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Duane Crider
Affiliation:
Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, USA
*
Emergency Medicine ResidencySt. Luke's Hospital801 Ostrum StreetBethlehem, PA 18015USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Introduction:

Although there is a general agreement that rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is thepreferred technique for intubation in aeromedical care, several pharamacological regimens have been employed without clear evidence of which is superior.

Hypothesis:

This study was designed to compare the use of etomidate (ETOM) with that of thiopental (THIO)as an adjunctive agent used with succinylcholine (SCh) for rapid sequence intubation in an urban, aeromedicalsystem.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, before-and-after study utilizing computer-assisted chart review. Adultpatients who received thiopental for rapid sequence intubation over a two-year period were compared to adult patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation over a similar period, after a change in protocol, which mandated etomidate rather than thiopental for all intubations.

Results:

No difference was found in any of the primary endpoints. Stabilization time (13.1 vs. 12.9 minutes), number of intubation attempts (1.1 vs. 1.2), successful first intubation attempts (90% vs. 82%), overallsuccessful intubations (100% vs. 96%), and intubation time (18.4 vs. 21.7 seconds) were similar for all comparisons of thiopental vs. etomidate (all p >0.05).

Conclusion:

This study found no clinically relevant differences between the use of etomidate or thiopental as adjuncts with succinylcholine for rapid sequence intubation in the aeromedical setting.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Deitch, S, Davis, DP, Schatterman, J et al. : The use of etomidate for prehospital rapid sequence intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care 2003;7(3):380383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Reed, DB, Snyder, G, Hogue, TD: Regional EMS experience with etomidate forfacilitated intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002;6(1):5053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Tentillier, E, Dupont, M, Thircoipe, M et al. : Protocol for advanced prehospital emergency care of severe head injury. Ann Fr Anest Reanim 2004;(2):109115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bozeman, WP, Young, S: Etomidate as a sole agent for endotracheal intubation in the prehospital air medical setting. Air Med J 2002;21(4):3235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Sivilotti, ML, Filbin, MR, Murray, HE et al. : Does the sedative agent facilitate emergency rapid sequence intubation? Acad Emerg Med 2003;10(6):612620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Schwab, C, Thom, S, Thompson, E et al. : PennStar Flight Program Operating Policy and Standard Orders. Protocols presented at the annual skills review of the PennStar Flight Program, Blue Bell, PA.Google Scholar
7.Yeung, J, Zed, P: A review of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 2002;4(3):19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed