OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54). CONCLUSIONS:Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Authors: Jae Min Lee; Yehyun Park; Jin Myung Park; Hong Jun Park; Jun Yong Bae; Seung Young Seo; Jee Hyun Lee; Hyung Ku Chon; Jun-Won Chung; Hyun Ho Choi; Jun Kyu Lee; Byung-Wook Kim Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2022-08-29