Propofol vs etomidate for induction prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Main finding · In-hospital mortalityResult — go to the resultWeighted mean difference −4.7 % 95% CI −7.6% to −1.8%Authors' conclusion
Induction with propofol, compared with etomidate, was associated with lower mortality for patients with AMI requiring IMV.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with acute MI requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, Vizient Clinical Data Base, October 2015–December 2019
- Participants
- 5,147 adults
- Exposure
- Propofol vs etomidate for induction before invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)
- Propofoln = 1,386
- Etomidaten = 3,761reference
- Outcome
- In-hospital mortality
Methodological detailsmulticenter, US national database, inverse probability treatment weighting
- Multicenter
- US national database
- Inverse probability treatment weighting
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Weighted mean difference
−4.7 %
95% CI −7.6% to −1.8%
P = 0.002
By group
Propofolvs Etomidate
weighted mean difference −4.7 % (95% CI −7.6% to −1.8%); P = 0.002
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Total cost, ventilator days, length of stay
- Higher with propofol
- P < 0.001
Original publication
Propofol vs etomidate for induction prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. Published 28 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →