Wenyu Zhang1, Zhihua Zhu1, Yan Zheng2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China. Electronic address: Yan_Zheng88@163.com.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedation agents for sedation during colonoscopy. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search through the database of Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. The continuous outcomes were expressed with weight mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI); and dichotomous outcomes were expressed with risk ratio (RR) with 95%CI. A fixed-effect model or random-effect model was used to pool the estimate according to the heterogeneity across included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 2512 patients were included in this study. Compared with traditional sedation agents, propofol had better effects in the recovery time (WMD = -5.94 min, 95%CI: -9.24, -2.63; P < 0.001), discharge time (WMD = -33.57 min, 95%CI: -71.73, -4.60; P = 0.015), satisfaction score (SMD = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.13, 1.33; P = 0.017), time to sedation (WMD = -4.31 min, 95%CI: -4.93, -3.69; P < 0.001), and time to ambulation (WMD = -27.20 min, 95%CI: -29.84, -24.56; P < 0.001). Moreover, propofol had comparable effects with traditional sedation agents in terms of other outcomes, including procedure time (WMD = -0.38 min, 95%CI: -0.84, 0.08; P = 0.108), pain score (SMD = 0.22, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.65; P = 0.318), amnesia rate (RR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.78, 1.11; P = 0.431), apnea rate (RR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.15, 1.85; P = 0.314), decreased heart rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.04; P = 0.080), decreased blood pressure (RR = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.81, 1.66; P = 0.417), and complication rate (RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.33, 1.15; P = 0.131). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that, propofol for sedation during colonoscopy can result in a faster recovery and discharge, a shorter time to sedation and ambulation, as well as improved patient satisfaction, but it did not increase the rate of complications. There is a need for more well-performed, large-scale trials to verify our findings.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedation agents for sedation during colonoscopy. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search through the database of Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. The continuous outcomes were expressed with weight mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI); and dichotomous outcomes were expressed with risk ratio (RR) with 95%CI. A fixed-effect model or random-effect model was used to pool the estimate according to the heterogeneity across included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 2512 patients were included in this study. Compared with traditional sedation agents, propofol had better effects in the recovery time (WMD = -5.94 min, 95%CI: -9.24, -2.63; P < 0.001), discharge time (WMD = -33.57 min, 95%CI: -71.73, -4.60; P = 0.015), satisfaction score (SMD = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.13, 1.33; P = 0.017), time to sedation (WMD = -4.31 min, 95%CI: -4.93, -3.69; P < 0.001), and time to ambulation (WMD = -27.20 min, 95%CI: -29.84, -24.56; P < 0.001). Moreover, propofol had comparable effects with traditional sedation agents in terms of other outcomes, including procedure time (WMD = -0.38 min, 95%CI: -0.84, 0.08; P = 0.108), pain score (SMD = 0.22, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.65; P = 0.318), amnesia rate (RR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.78, 1.11; P = 0.431), apnea rate (RR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.15, 1.85; P = 0.314), decreased heart rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.04; P = 0.080), decreased blood pressure (RR = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.81, 1.66; P = 0.417), and complication rate (RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.33, 1.15; P = 0.131). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that, propofol for sedation during colonoscopy can result in a faster recovery and discharge, a shorter time to sedation and ambulation, as well as improved patient satisfaction, but it did not increase the rate of complications. There is a need for more well-performed, large-scale trials to verify our findings.
Authors: Nan Song; Xi-Sheng Shan; Yi Yang; Zhong Zheng; Wen-Cheng Shi; Xiao-Yan Yang; Yang Li; Ai-Ping Tan; Hong Liu; Ke Peng; Fu-Hai Ji Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cesare Hassan; Pedro Amaro; Anurag Agrawal; Lene Brink; Wolfgang Fischbach; Matthias Hünger; Rodrigo Jover; Urpo Kinnunen; Akiko Ono; Árpád Patai; Silvia Pecere; Lucio Petruzziello; Jürgen F Riemann; Harry Staines; Ann L Stringer; Ervin Toth; Giulio Antonelli; Lorenzo Fuccio Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-15
Authors: Michał Jan Stasiowski; Małgorzata Starzewska; Ewa Niewiadomska; Seweryn Król; Kaja Marczak; Jakub Żak; Aleksandra Pluta; Jerzy Eszyk; Beniamin Oskar Grabarek; Izabela Szumera; Michał Nycz; Anna Missir; Lech Krawczyk; Przemysław Jałowiecki Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-05-14