Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/2773
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorTamsett, Z.en_US
dc.contributorDouglas, N.en_US
dc.contributorKing, C.en_US
dc.contributorJohnston, T.en_US
dc.contributorBentley, C.en_US
dc.contributorHao, B.en_US
dc.contributorPrinsloo, D.en_US
dc.contributorBourke, Elyssiaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-27T05:21:43Z-
dc.date.available2024-11-27T05:21:43Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.identifier.govdoc02738en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/2773-
dc.description.abstractObjective To describe the effects of different induction agents on the incidence of post-induction hypotension (PIH) and its associated interventions during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the ED. Methods A single centre retrospective study of patients intubated between 2018 and 2021 was conducted in a regional Australian ED. The impact of induction agent choice, in addition to demographic and clinical factors on the incidence of PIH were determined using descriptive statistics and a multivariate analysis presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Ketamine and propofol, used either individually or in conjunction with fentanyl, were significantly associated with PIH (ketamine aOR 4.5, 95% CI 1.35–14.96; propofol aOR 4.88, 95% CI 1.46–16.29). Age >60 years was associated with a greater requirement for vasopressors (aOR 4.46, 95% CI 2.49–7.97) and a higher risk of mortality after RSI (aOR 4.2, 95% CI 1.87–9.40). Patients with a shock index >1.0 were significantly more likely to require vasopressors (aOR 5.13, 95% CI 2.35–11.2) and have a cardiac arrest within 15 min of RSI (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 1.07–11.8). Conclusions Exposure to both propofol and ketamine is significantly associated with PIH after RSI, alongside age and shock index. PIH is likely multifactorial in nature, and this data supports the sympatholytic effect of induction agents as the underlying cause of PIH rather than the choice of agent itself. Further prospective work including a randomised controlled trial between induction agents is justified to further clarify this important clinical question.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2024-07-08T06:22:16Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2024-11-27T05:21:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2024-11-27T05:21:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2024en
dc.titleDoes the choice of induction agent in rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department influence the incidence of post-induction hypotension?en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.specifiedArticleen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleEmergency Medicine Australasiaen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume36en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue3en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage340en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage347en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusANAESTHETIC MORBIDITYen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusINDUCTION AGENTSen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusPOST-INDUCTION HYPOTENSIONen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusRAPID SEQUENCE INTUBATIONen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusEMERGENCY DEPARTMENTen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.14355en_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.