Effectiveness and Safety Study of Etomidate Versus Midazolam to Help Place a Breathing Tube Outside of the Hospital.

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE2

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2002-10-31

Study Completion Date

2005-11-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The objective of this study was to compare the utility of etomidate and midazolam in helping patients to relax when there was a need for the placement of a ventilation tube by medics who were transporting patients to a hospital in an ambulance.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Facilitating Extubation

NCT00744380

Critical Illness

COMPLETED NA

A Safety and Efficacy Study of Dexmedetomidine in ICU Patients Requiring Continuous Sedation

NCT00216190

Mechanically Ventilated and Intubated Subjects

COMPLETED PHASE4

Analgesic Effects of Midazolam in Human Volunteers

NCT02629146

Analgesic Drugs Antinociceptive Agents

COMPLETED PHASE4

Effect of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam Versus a Combination of the Two as a Premedication for Children Undergoing Bilateral Myringotomy Tube Insertion

NCT02134327

Pre Operative Sedation Mask Acceptance Post Operative Delerium

WITHDRAWN NA

Midazolam Used Alone or Sequential Use of Midazolam and Propofol/Dexmedetomidine in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

NCT02528513

Mechanical Ventilation Complication Delirium

UNKNOWN PHASE4

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Study Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the utility of etomidate and midazolam for sedative facilitated intubation (SFI), without paralytics, in pre-hospital adult patients.

Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized trial was conducted with two ground pre-hospital Advanced Life Support (ALS) units. All patients age 18 or over transported by the two participating systems requiring pre-hospital SFI were eligible for participation. The ambulances were stocked with blinded numbered syringes, each containing either 7mg of midazolam or 20mg of etomidate. Contact with the Medic Command physician was not required and no paralytics were used. If sedation was not achieved with the study drug, medics could request additional sedation from a Medical command physician; only midazolam or diazepam were available outside of the study.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Respiratory Failure

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Etomidate (20mg) or Midazolam (7mg)

Intervention Type DRUG

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Under the study protocol, all patients age 18 or over transported by the two participating ALS systems, requiring pre-hospital Sedation Facilitated Intubation, were eligible for participation.

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No