-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.
Topics: Humans; Benzodiazepines; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38443286
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.02.005 -
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Jun 2016The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature with regard to the influence of propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature with regard to the influence of propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in healthy pigs. Anaesthesia has influence on cerebral haemodynamics and it is important not only in human but also in veterinary anaesthesia to preserve optimal regulation of cerebral haemodynamics. Propofol and remifentanil are widely used in neuroanaesthesia and are increasingly used in experimental animal studies. In translational models, the pig has advantages compared to small laboratory animals because of brain anatomy, metabolism, neurophysiological maturation, and cerebral haemodynamics. However, reported effects of propofol and remifentanil on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in pigs have not been reviewed. An electronic search identified 99 articles in English. Title and abstract screening selected 29 articles for full-text evaluation of which 19 were excluded with reasons. Of the 10 peer-reviewed articles included for review, only three had propofol or remifentanil anaesthesia as the primary study objective and only two directly investigated the effect of anaesthesia on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation (CPO). The evidence evaluated in this systematic review is limited, not focused on propofol and remifentanil and possibly influenced by factors of potential importance for CPO assessment. In one study of healthy pigs, CPO measures were within normal ranges following propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia, and addition of a single remifentanil bolus did not affect regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2). Even though the pool of evidence suggests that propofol and remifentanil alone or in combination have limited effects on CPO in healthy pigs, confirmative evidence is lacking.
Topics: Animals; Brain; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Oxygen; Periodicals as Topic; Piperidines; Propofol; Remifentanil; Swine
PubMed: 27334375
DOI: 10.1186/s13028-016-0223-6 -
Sleep & Breathing = Schlaf & Atmung Sep 2017The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) or sedation in which there is a description of the effect of the agents on the upper airway and associated variables (e.g., vital signs, sedation scores).
METHODS
This is a systematic review through October 4, 2016. PubMed/MEDLINE and four additional databases were accessed for this study.
RESULTS
Two hundred twenty studies were screened, 79 were downloaded, and 10 met criteria. The majority of the studies identified dexmedetomidine as the preferred pharmacologic agent for DISE due to an overall safer and more stable profile based upon hemodynamic stability. However, propofol provided greater airway obstruction with oxygen desaturations. With either agent, the degree of obstruction in the upper airway lacks some degree of validity as to whether the obstructions accurately represent natural sleep or are simply a drug-induced effect.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine and propofol have their advantages and disadvantages during DISE. Generally, dexmedetomidine was preferred and seemed to provide a more stable profile based upon cardiopulmonary status. However, propofol has a quicker onset, has a shorter half-life, and can demonstrate larger degrees of obstruction, which might more accurately reflect what happens during REM sleep. Additional research is recommended.
Topics: Anesthesia; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy; Humans; Propofol; Sleep
PubMed: 28130737
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-017-1465-x -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase and The Cochrane Library from inception until September 21st 2022. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included when they reported on clinical outcomes of gynecologic procedures under procedural sedation and analgesia in which propofol was used as an anesthetic. Studies were excluded when sedation without propofol was used, when they only mentioned the use of procedural sedation and analgesia but did not describe any clinical outcome parameters or when < 10 patients were included. The primary outcome parameter was completeness of procedure. Secondary outcome parameters were type of gynecologic procedure, intraoperative complication rate, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, duration of hospital admission, patient's discomfort and ease of procedure as judged by the surgeon. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies was provided. Numbers and percentages were presented, as well as means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile range where applicable.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. A total of 914 patients underwent gynecologic surgical procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol. Gynecological procedures varied from hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The percentage of complete procedures was 89.8%-100%. Complications occurred in 0-6.5% of patients. Other outcomes were measured in various ways, but overall patient satisfaction was high and postoperative pain was low.
CONCLUSION
The use of PSA with propofol is promising for a wide range of gynecologic procedures, including hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The use of PSA with propofol seems to be effective and safe and leads to high degree of patient satisfaction. More research is needed in order to determine for which types of procedures PSA can be used.
Topics: Humans; Female; Propofol; Uterine Prolapse; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37327552
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. The authors...
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), = 30%, <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), = 0%, < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), = 0%, = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol. Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.
PubMed: 34381792
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.655042 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Mar 2016This meta-analysis of trials was conducted to evaluate the analgesic and side effects of ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) in comparison to propofol in procedural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis of trials was conducted to evaluate the analgesic and side effects of ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) in comparison to propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA).
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINHAL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for clinical trial. The administration complications were the key outcomes of interest.
RESULT
Eighteen clinical trials that met our criteria were included in the analysis. Pooling of data showed that ketofol is significantly effective for reduction of respiratory complication and with relative risk (RR) of 0.31 in 14 trials (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.7; P = .001). Ketofol was also effective in reducing cardiovascular complications with hypotension RR of 0.11 in 9 trials (95% CI, 0.17-0.97; P = .04) and bradycardia RR of 0.47 in 8 trials (95% CI, 0.28-0.72; P = .008). The present study also showed that the summary of RR for psychomimetic complications was 1.95 in 13 trials were (95% CI, 0.79-4.81; P = .15) and for muscle rigidity was 0.52 for 2 trials (95% CI, 0.06-4.67; P = .56), and both were insignificant. In regard to nausea and vomiting, the RR was 1.23 in 12 trials (95% CI, 0.39-3.88; P = .72) and insignificant.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrates good safety profile in cardiorespiratory problems and comparable rate of other complications with propofol in adult procedural sedation and analgesia.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Dissociative; Conscious Sedation; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain Management; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26809929
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.12.074 -
Medicine Sep 2018Propofol and midazolam are widely used for the sedation of bronchoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to compare the efficacy of propofol and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol and midazolam are widely used for the sedation of bronchoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to compare the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.
METHODS
The databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases are systematically searched for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis has included 4 RCTs. Compared with midazolam intervention in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, propofol intervention is associated with remarkably reduced recovery time [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -1.04 to -0.45; P < .00001], but demonstrates no significant impact on operation time (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.13; P = .87), induction time (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI = -1.19 to 0.03; P = .06), lowest oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2, SMD = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.58; P = .15), SpO2 <90% [risk ratio (RR) = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.82-1.25; P = .88), and major arrhythmias (RR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.26-1.19; P = .13).
CONCLUSION
Propofol sedation is able to reduce recovery time and shows similar safety compared with midazolam sedation during bronchoscopy.
Topics: Anesthetics, Intravenous; Bronchoscopy; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Pain, Procedural; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30200147
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012229 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2023(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods:... (Review)
Review
(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from their inception up to 22 October 2023. Included in this analysis were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared remimazolam-flumazenil with propofol for the recovery from sedation and anesthesia in adults. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either fixed-effects or random-effects models, and the results were visualized in forest plots. (3) Results: Nine RCTs involving 745 patients who underwent general anesthesia in three different countries were included. Compared to propofol, the remimazolam-flumazenil combination shortened the emergence time (MD = -4.34 min, 95% CI = [-6.88, -1.81], = 0.0008, low certainty), extubation time (MD = -4.26 min, 95% CI = [-6.81, -1.7], = 0.0011, low certainty), and the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (MD = -4.42 min, 95% CI = [-7.45, -1.38], = 0.0044, low certainty), while reducing the incidence of respiratory depression (RR = 0.2, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.89], = 0.03, high certainty) after general anesthesia. However, this combination was associated with a higher incidence of re-sedation (RR = 4.15, 95% CI = [1.31, 13.13], = 0.01, moderate certainty). (4) Conclusions: Based on the existing evidence, the combination of remimazolam and flumazenil accelerates recovery from general anesthesia and lowers the risk of respiratory depression compared to propofol. However, it is important to consider the higher risk of re-sedation when using this combination in clinical practice. Due to limitations in the quality of the evidence, it is advisable to interpret the results of meta-analyses with caution.
PubMed: 38068368
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237316 -
Minerva Anestesiologica 2023This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.
CONCLUSIONS
Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Bradycardia; Pain; Analgesia; Hypotension
PubMed: 36988407
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17100-8 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2024Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence is lower when propofol is used for maintenance of anaesthesia compared with sevoflurane, although this is not clear.
METHODS
This meta-analysis compared postoperative pain following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane in paediatric surgeries. PubMed Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative pain between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia in children. After quality assessment, a meta-analysis was carried out using bias-adjusted inverse heterogeneity methods, heterogeneity using I and publication bias using Doi plots.
RESULTS
In total, 13 RCTs with 1174 children were included. The overall synthesis suggested nearly two-fold higher odds of overall postoperative pain in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.15, I=58.2%). Further, children in the sevoflurane group had higher odds of having higher pain scores (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.83-5.53, I=20.9%), and a 60% increase in the odds of requiring postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89-2.88, I=58.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
Children maintained on inhalational sevoflurane had higher odds of postoperative pain compared with those maintained on propofol. The results also suggest that sevoflurane is associated with higher odds of needing postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration ID CRD42023445913.
Topics: Humans; Sevoflurane; Propofol; Pain, Postoperative; Child; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Child, Preschool; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38670899
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.022