-
Jornal de Pediatria 2020To determine the main indications and assess the most common adverse events with the administration of hypnotic propofol in most pediatric clinical scenarios.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the main indications and assess the most common adverse events with the administration of hypnotic propofol in most pediatric clinical scenarios.
SOURCES
A systematic review of PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane, and EMBASE was performed, using filters such as a maximum of five years post-publication, and/or references or articles of importance, with emphasis on clinical trials using propofol. All articles of major relevance were blind-reviewed by both authors according to the PRISMA statement, looking for possible bias and limitations or the quality of the articles.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
Through the search criterion applied, 417 articles were found, and their abstracts evaluated. A total of 69 papers were thoroughly studied. Articles about propofol use in children are increasing, including in neonates, with the majority being cohort studies and clinical trials in two main scenarios: upper digestive endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. A huge list of adverse events has been published, but most articles considered them of low risk.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol is a hypnotic drug with a safe profile of efficacy and adverse events. Indeed, when administered by non-anesthesiologists, quick access to emergency care must be provided, especially in airway events. The use of propofol in other scenarios must be better studied, aiming to reduce the limitations of its administration by general pediatricians.
Topics: Child; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Propofol
PubMed: 31926134
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2019.08.011 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jun 2021At present, liver cancer deaths of China account for about half of the global liver cancer deaths. The most common physiological change in anesthesia surgery for liver... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
At present, liver cancer deaths of China account for about half of the global liver cancer deaths. The most common physiological change in anesthesia surgery for liver cancer is liver ischemia-reperfusion injury (LIRI).
METHODS
The Chinese and English medical databases were searched using a combination of the following search terms: "propofol", "liver cancer", "anesthesia surgery", and "ischemia reperfusion injury" in Chinese or English language, respectively. The articles taking patients received propofol intravenous anesthesia surgery for LIRI in the experimental group and patients received intravenous anesthesia with non-propofol drugs for LIRI in the control group were searched. Rev Man 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 18 articles were included, and most were considered to have low-risk bias (that is, medium- and high-quality publications). The meta-analysis results indicated that the superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels from the blockage of the hepatic hilum (B-HH) to the 15-minute opening of the hepatic hilum (O-HH) showed a mean deviation (MD) of -0.33 nU/mL and 95% confidential interval (CI) of -1.81 to 1.15 nmol/L (P<0.05). The levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) from B-HH to O-HH showed a MD of 1.80 nmol/L and 95% CI of 1.53 to 2.07 nmol/l (P<0.05). The MD of alanine transaminase (ALT) levels from B-HH to O-HH was 8.24 IU/L with 95% CI 6.43 to 10.06 IU/L (P<0.05). The MD of aspartate transaminase (AST) levels from B-HH to O-HH was -11.73 IU/L with 95% CI -14.04 to -9.43 IU/L (P<0.05). The RevMan5.3 software was used to draw the funnel chart for each indicator from B-HH to OHH. The results revealed that the circles in some articles were concentrated on the midline and were basically symmetrical with the midline, indicating that the research accuracy was high and there was no bias in publication.
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis confirmed that propofol exerted a protective effect on LIRI during anesthesia surgery with hepatic hilar blockade.
Topics: Anesthesia; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; China; Humans; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Propofol; Reperfusion Injury
PubMed: 34154355
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1242 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Apr 2024The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.
RECENT FINDINGS
Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Propofol; Dexmedetomidine; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Vomiting; Pain; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38214834
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01208-0 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2024Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical animal studies. However, the clinical benefits of propofol in this context are subject to debate. We conducted a systematic search across eight databases to identify all relevant animal studies investigating the preventive effects of propofol on MIRI until October 30, 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using SYRCLE's bias risk tool. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 15.1. The primary outcome measures analyzed in this study were myocardial infarct size (IS) and myocardial injury biomarkers. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of 48 relevant animal studies investigating propofol's preventive effects on MIRI. Propofol administration demonstrated a reduction in myocardial IS and decreased levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (CK-MB, LDH, cTnI). Moreover, propofol improved myocardial function parameters (+dp/dtmax, -dP/dtmax, LVEF, LVFS), exhibited favorable effects on inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNF-α) and oxidative stress markers (SOD, MDA), and reduced myocardial cell apoptotic index (AI). These findings suggest propofol exerts cardioprotective effects by reducing myocardial injury, decreasing infarct size, and improving heart function. However, the absence of animal models that accurately represent comorbidities such as aging and hypertension, as well as inconsistent administration methods that align with clinical practice, may hinder its clinical translation. Further robust investigations are required to validate these findings, elucidate the underlying mechanisms of propofol, and facilitate its potential translation into clinical practice.
Topics: Propofol; Animals; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Reperfusion Injury; Oxidative Stress; Biomarkers; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Apoptosis
PubMed: 38640712
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116629 -
BMC Emergency Medicine Oct 2020The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia.
METHOD
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS
Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I = 59%).
CONCLUSION
There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
Topics: Analgesics; Child; Conscious Sedation; Drug Combinations; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Pain Management; Propofol
PubMed: 33032544
DOI: 10.1186/s12873-020-00373-4 -
PloS One 2021To determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
Randomized clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in preventing PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), use of rescue antiemetics, and incidence of complete response in the overall postoperative phases. The secondary endpoints were the same parameters assessed in the early, middle, and late postoperative phases. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms were used to present the hierarchy of pharmacologic interventions.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (n = 3,467 patients) that investigated 17 different pharmacologic interventions were included. According to the SUCRA values, the incidence of PONV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (16.1%), followed by palonosetron (27.5%), and with tropisetron (28.7%). The incidence of PON among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (11.8%), followed by tropisetron and propofol combination (14%), and ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (18.0%). The incidence of POV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with tropisetron and propofol combination (2.2%), followed by ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (23.2%), and tropisetron alone (37.3%). The least usage of rescue antiemetics among the overall postoperative phases and the highest complete response was observed with tropisetron and propofol combination (3.9% and 96.6%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Propofol and tropisetron alone and in combination, and the ramosetron and dexamethasone combination effectively prevented PONV, PON, POV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy, with some heterogeneity observed in this NMA of full-text reports. Their use minimized the need for rescue antiemetics and enhanced the complete response.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018100002.
Topics: Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thyroidectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33428643
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243865 -
BMC Anesthesiology Apr 2023The benefit of remote ischemia preconditioning (RIPreC) in pediatric cardiac surgery is unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The benefit of remote ischemia preconditioning (RIPreC) in pediatric cardiac surgery is unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of RIPreC in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay after pediatric cardiac surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPreC versus control in children undergoing cardiac surgery were included. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The outcomes of interest were postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis to calculate weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes of interest. We performed sensitivity analysis to examine the influence of intraoperative propofol use.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials enrolling 1,352 children were included. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that RIPreC did not reduce postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -5.35 h, 95% CI -12.12-1.42) but reduced postoperative ICU length of stay (WMD -11.48 h, 95% CI -20.96- -2.01). When only trials using propofol-free anesthesia were included, both mechanical ventilation duration (WMD -2.16 h, 95% CI -3.87- -0.45) and ICU length of stay (WMD -7.41 h, 95% CI -14.77- -0.05) were reduced by RIPreC. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of RIPreC on clinical outcomes after pediatric cardiac surgery were inconsistent, but both postoperative mechanical ventilation duration and ICU length of stay were reduced in the subgroup of children not exposed to propofol. These results suggested a possible interaction effect of propofol. More studies with adequate sample size and without intraoperative propofol use are needed to define the role of RIPreC in pediatric cardiac surgery.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Propofol; Intensive Care Units; Ischemic Preconditioning; Length of Stay; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 37005591
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02064-6 -
Gastroenterology Research and Practice 2018The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study.
RESULTS
No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57-3.04, chi = 0.053, = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09-3.20).
CONCLUSION
Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low.
HOW TO APPLY THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE
Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.
PubMed: 30210535
DOI: 10.1155/2018/6501215 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Feb 2015Desflurane's short emergence time supports fast track anaesthesia. Data on the rate of upper airway complications and emergence time when desflurane is used with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Desflurane's short emergence time supports fast track anaesthesia. Data on the rate of upper airway complications and emergence time when desflurane is used with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are controversial and limited.
OBJECTIVES
To compare recovery time variables and the rates of upper airway adverse events in patients with an LMA undergoing general surgery with desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search for eligible RCTs in Embase (Elsevier) and in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) databases up to September 2013.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs investigating the rates of cough overall, cough at emergence, laryngospasm, time to eye opening, time to removal of the LMA, time to respond to command and time to state date of birth in patients with an LMA, during emergence from desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included and analysed. We found a strong interstudy variability. There was no difference in the rates of upper airway events between desflurane and sevoflurane or between desflurane and a control group consisting of all the other anaesthetics combined. Comparing desflurane (n = 284) with all other anaesthetic groups (n = 313), the risk ratio [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] was 1.12 (0.63 to 2.02, P = 0.70). Cough at emergence was only measured in patients receiving desflurane (n = 148) and sevoflurane (n = 146): the risk ratio (95% CI) was 1.49 (0.55 to 4.02, P = 0.43). Laryngospasm was rare and there was no significant difference in its incidence when desflurane (n = 262) was compared with all other anaesthetics combined (n = 289; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.20, P = 0.96). The times of all emergence variables were significantly faster in the desflurane group than in all other groups.
CONCLUSION
When using an LMA, upper airway adverse reactions in association with desflurane anaesthesia were no different from those noted with sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. Emergence from general anaesthesia with desflurane is significantly faster than all the other anaesthetics. Due to interstudy variations and the small size of the trials, further large-scale, multicentre studies are required to confirm or refute the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Cough; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Laryngeal Masks; Laryngismus; Methyl Ethers; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 25545286
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000183 -
Annals of Intensive Care Aug 2022Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase.
RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) - 2.15; 95% CI [- 3.25, - 1.05] and SMD - 1.07, 95% CI [- 1.92, - 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD - 0.22; 95% CI [- 0.85, - 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [- 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.
PubMed: 36029410
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-022-01052-2