Anesthesiologist and Emergency Medicine Physician Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Etomidate for Intubation.

The use of etomidate as an induction agent for critically ill patients is controversial. While its favorable hemodynamic profile is enviable, etomidate has been shown to cause transient adrenal suppression. The clinical consequences of transient adrenal suppression are poorly understood. Anecdotally, some clinicians advocate strongly for etomidate, while others feel it can cause significant harm. To better understand the current clinical environment with respect to single-dose etomidate use in critically ill patients, Canadian anesthesiologists and Canadian emergency medicine (EM) physicians were questioned regarding their opinions, knowledge, and preferences about etomidate use as an induction agent. Invitations to participate with the electronic survey were sent to 100 Canadian EM physicians and 260 Canadian anesthesiologists. The survey had 4 general parts: demographics, familiarity with the current literature, choice of induction agent given various clinical scenarios, and opinions on the controversy. The Pearson γ Ninety three anesthesiologists and 42 EM physicians responded for response rates of 36% and 42%. There were no self-reported differences in knowledge about etomidate properties between EM physicians and anesthesiologists. There were significant differences in etomidate use between EM physicians and anesthesiologists in general rapid sequence intubation, noncritically ill patients, and those with undifferentiated hypotension. Both EM physicians and anesthesiologists describe the current etomidate controversy as significant and not adequately resolved. There is no significant difference in self-reported etomidate knowledge between anesthesiologists and EM physicians; however, significant practice pattern differences exist with EM physicians using etomidate more often. Broad agreement supports future research to investigate etomidate's impact in critically ill patients.