Background: Hypereosinophilic syndrome is a rare disease that increases the number of circulating eosinophils in the body. It has many complications, including peripheral polyneuropathy. Peripheral polyneuropathy often does not respond well to conventional therapies. Transcutaneous neurostimulatory treatment, also known as scrambler therapy, is an alternative modality for the treatment of chronic retractable pain. Case: A 47-year-old woman presented with complaints of bilateral calf pain. She had been under treatment for peripheral polyneuropathy induced by hypereosinophilic syndrome for 7 years. Pharmacologic treatment did not affect the patient’s symptoms. Conclusions Transcutaneous neurostimulatory treatment was administered to the patient. It was effective on her symptoms, and the effect of pain alleviation continued for 3 months.

Background: Non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), in which continuous epileptiform dis-charges occur without seizure-like movement, is rare and unfamiliar to anesthesiologists, both of which make this condition overlooked in patients with decreased levels of consciousness following general anesthesia.Case: We report on an elderly female patient who developed NCSE in the immediate postoperative period after the spine surgery. Initially, delayed emergence from anesthesia was suspected, but the electroencephalogram confirmed NCSE, and anticonvulsant therapy was initiated. Conclusions Delayed emergence is commonly attributed to cerebrovascular events or residual anes-thetic effects, but NCSE must be included in the differential diagnosis, especially in elderly pa-tients. Anticonvulsant therapy should be initiated as soon as possible for a better prognosis.

Background: There is a debate regarding the safety of etomidate. We evaluated the effects of etomidate on mortality in a large cohort of critical care patients. Methods: This retrospective matched-cohort study was performed using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care version 3 (MIMIC-III) database. Among 12,526 adult patients who were prescribed etomidate or propofol on the first day of mechanical ventilation, 625 patients administered etomidate were statistically matched with 6,250 patients administered propofol. The primary outcome measures were all-cause in-hospital mortality, 48-hour survival, cardiovascular morbidity, and infectious morbidity. Logistic regression analysis with stepwise selection of variables was performed to examine the dose–mortality relationship of etomidate. Results: All-cause in-hospital mortality was 1.84 times higher in the etomidate cohort (OR, 1.84; 98.75% CI, 1.42, 2.37). Compared to the propofol cohort, the etomidate cohort showed 57% lower odds of 48-hour survival (0.43 [0.27, 0.73]), no difference in odds of cardiovascular morbidity (0.86 [0.66, 1.12]), and 1.77 times higher odds of infectious morbidity (1.77 [1.35, 2.31]). Additionally, the odds of mortality increased by 1.36 times per 0.1 mg/kg of etomidate (1.36 [95% CI: 1.23, 1.49]). Conclusions Etomidate is a poor choice as a hypnotic drug on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as it is associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality, and does not improve survival for the first 48 h.

Background: There is a debate regarding the safety of etomidate. We evaluated the effects of etomidate on mortality in a large cohort of critical care patients. Methods: This retrospective matched-cohort study was performed using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care version 3 (MIMIC-III) database. Among 12,526 adult patients who were prescribed etomidate or propofol on the first day of mechanical ventilation, 625 patients administered etomidate were statistically matched with 6,250 patients administered propofol. The primary outcome measures were all-cause in-hospital mortality, 48-hour survival, cardiovascular morbidity, and infectious morbidity. Logistic regression analysis with stepwise selection of variables was performed to examine the dose–mortality relationship of etomidate. Results: All-cause in-hospital mortality was 1.84 times higher in the etomidate cohort (OR, 1.84; 98.75% CI, 1.42, 2.37). Compared to the propofol cohort, the etomidate cohort showed 57% lower odds of 48-hour survival (0.43 [0.27, 0.73]), no difference in odds of cardiovascular morbidity (0.86 [0.66, 1.12]), and 1.77 times higher odds of infectious morbidity (1.77 [1.35, 2.31]). Additionally, the odds of mortality increased by 1.36 times per 0.1 mg/kg of etomidate (1.36 [95% CI: 1.23, 1.49]). Conclusions Etomidate is a poor choice as a hypnotic drug on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as it is associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality, and does not improve survival for the first 48 h.