Ketamine versus Etomidate as an induction agent for tracheal intubation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Pooled resultResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.97 95% CI 0.89–1.06Authors' conclusion
Neither ketamine nor etomidate conferred a survival advantage in critically ill patients.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill patients undergoing emergency tracheal intubation
- Participants
- 4,807 patients · 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- Ketamine vs etomidate as induction agent for RSI
- Outcome
- Mortality
- Follow-up
- Longest
Methodological detailsupdated
- Updated
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Relative risk
0.97
95% CI 0.89–1.06
P = 0.51
Ketamine vs Etomidate
RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89–1.06); P = 0.51
Further pooled results
Survival at 24 h and 7 d
- Survival similar between ketamine and etomidate at both time points
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-induction cardiovascular collapsePooled analysis of two open-label trials | 1.34 (1.16–1.54) | P < 0.01 | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Ketamine versus Etomidate as an induction agent for tracheal intubation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 22 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →