Efficacy and safety of esketamine for emergency endotracheal intubation in ICU patients: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial.
Xue Zhang, Xin Zhao, Jiaxin Xu, Hong Liu, Shiying Yuan, Jiancheng Zhang
Scientific reports February 19, 2025 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-91016-w via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractFor emergency intubation in critically ill adults, using esketamine for induction results in higher mean arterial pressure during and after the procedure compared to a midazolam/sufentanil admixture, with no significant difference in heart rate. Patients receiving esketamine required less norepinephrine, had a shorter duration of ventilation support (median 105 vs. 212 hours), and a shorter ICU stay (median 7 vs. 15 days). 28-day mortality did not differ between groups, and no serious adverse events occurred. Esketamine appears to be a hemodynamically stable induction agent for this population.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Randomized controlled trial Double-blind Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 80 |
| Population | Critically ill adult patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation |
| Interventions | Esketamine Midazolam/sufentanil admixture |
| Topics | Esketamine |
| Keywords | Anesthesia induction Emergency endotracheal intubation Hypotension Intensive care Emergency medicine |
| Citations | 8 |
| Registration | NCT05464979 |
| Key finding | Esketamine provided greater hemodynamic stability than a midazolam/sufentanil admixture during induction, and was associated with shorter ventilation duration and ICU stay. |
Abstract
Emergency endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients are dangerous procedures with a greater risk of severe hypotension The efficacy and safety of esketamine with sympathoexcitatory effects for rapid sequence induction in critically ill patients remain unclear. In this prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial, adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either esketamine or midazolam/sufentanil admixture for induction. The primary outcomes were the effects of induction with esketamine or midazolam/sufentanil admixture on hemodynamic responses (heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during and after induction). Secondary outcomes were the duration of ventilation support, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, 28-day mortality. We enrolled 80 patients, of whom 38 were assigned to the esketamine group and 42 to the midazolam/sufentanil admixture group. The MAP in group esketamine was significantly higher than that in group midazolam/sufentanil admixture during the induction, and at 1 min, 5 min and 10 min after intubation. No significant differences in HR between groups were observed. The duration of ventilation support [105.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 40.9 - 248.3) hours vs. 211.5 (IQR 122.1 - 542.1) hours, P = 0.002] and the length of ICU stay [7.0 (IQR 4.0 - 16.3) days vs. 15.0 (IQR 8.0 - 26.0) days, P = 0.002] were significantly decreased in group esketamine, compared to that in group midazolam/sufentanil admixture. In group esketamine, less norepinephrine [0.00 (IQR 0.00 - 0.10) µg/kg/min vs. 0.09 (IQR 0.00 - 0.29) µg/kg/min, P = 0.016] was needed. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups. No serious adverse events occurred. In conclusion, esketamine is a hemodynamically stable induction agent in critically ill patients, which could reduce the length of ICU stay and the duration of ventilation support.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (19/07/2022; NCT05464979).