-
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 -
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 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 -
Pain Physician Nov 2023Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for consistent sedation and quick recovery in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol is one of the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics in clinical practice. Recently, only a few studies have compared propofol with remimazolam for general anesthesia induction.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the hemodynamic effects of remimazolam and propofol during the induction of general anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
METHODS
The authors retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies published through September 30, 2022, which reported relevant prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam with propofol for general anesthesia. The primary outcome was hemodynamic changes, including the absolute value of fluctuation of mean arterial pressure (delta MAP) and heart rate delta HR). The secondary outcomes were the following 2 indicators: the occurrence of total adverse events and the quality of recovery from general anesthesia at 24 hours postsurgery. RevMan 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration) and trial sequential analysis were used to execute the statistical analyses. The different domains of bias were judged by the Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool.
RESULTS
The authors identified 189 papers in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Eight articles with 964 patients were selected. The included studies had moderate quality. For primary outcomes, the lower delta HR (mean difference [MD] = -4.99; 95% CI, -7.97 to -2.00; I² = 41.6%; P = 0.001] and delta MAP (MD = -5.91; 95% CI. -8.57 to -3.24; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) represent more stable hemodynamic characteristics in the remimazolam group. Regarding secondary outcomes, a considerably lower incidence of total adverse events was noted in the remimazolam group than that for the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.58; I² = 63%; P < 0.00001). In comparison to the propofol group, remimazolam achieved an advantage score of quality of recovery -15 in 24 hours postsurgery (MD = 5.31, 95% CI, 1.51 to 9.12; I² = 87%; P = 0.006).
LIMITATION
Firstly, there are only a handful of published RCTs on the administration of remimazolam in general anesthesia. In addition, due to patient privacy, we could not extract individual patient data, therefore we could not combine and assess any variations in patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests that remimazolam has a lower hemodynamic effect during general anesthesia and fewer perioperative adverse effects after general anesthesia than propofol; however, which agent is superior regarding quality benefit in postoperative recovery based on the studies included here remains inconclusive. Additional RCTs with updated meta-analyses to enlarge the sample size and properly analyze the benefit-to-risk ratio to patients are needed to determine the evidence for such a relatively new medicine.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Benzodiazepines; Hemodynamics
PubMed: 37976477
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Neurology Apr 2019Several studies have compared the efficacy and safety of propofol and barbiturates in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). This study aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have compared the efficacy and safety of propofol and barbiturates in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). This study aims to quantitatively assess the advantages and disadvantages of propofol and barbiturates in controlling RSE.
METHODS
We searched for studies with relevant data from the PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Springer Link, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. By calculating odds ratios and standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, we assessed the disease control rate (DCR), case fatality rate (CFR), average control time (ACT), average tracheal intubation placement time (ATIPT), and incidence of hypotension between propofol and barbiturates in treating RSE.
RESULTS
Seven studies with 261 patients were included in this analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that the DCR of propofol was higher than that of barbiturates (p < 0.001) and that the CFR (p = 0.382) between the two treatment did not significantly differ in controlling RSE. Propofol shortened the ACT (p < 0.001) of RSE and reduced the ATIPT (p < 0.001) of patients with RSE more extensively than did barbiturates and did not increase the incidence of hypotension (p = 0.737).
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with barbiturates, propofol can control RSE and shorten ATIPT in a more efficient and timely manner. Moreover, the drug does not increase the incidence of hypotension and CFR.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Barbiturates; China; Humans; Male; Odds Ratio; Propofol; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 30954065
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-019-1281-y -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as...
Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Twelve RCTs (sedation: = 6, anesthetic induction, = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I = 0%, 1,106 patients, = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I = 97%, 1,594 patients, = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).
PubMed: 37818194
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1225288 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Mar 2021Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with any volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes. The secondary aim is to compare propofol-based TIVA with specific volatile agents on long-term oncological outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception through March 3, 2020. Randomized control trials and observational studies that compared the effects of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes, which also reported hazard ratios (HR) as effect estimates, were considered eligible for inclusion. Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Trial sequential analysis was incorporated to test if the results were subject to a type I or type II error.
RESULTS
Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In the subgroup analysis by different volatile anesthetics, patients who received propofol-based TIVA were associated with better overall survival than those who received desflurane (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.36-0.80, P = .003, I2 = 80%). In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). In the trial sequential analysis of overall survival, the cumulative Z curve reached the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size and crossed the traditional significance boundary. In contrast, in the trial sequential analysis of recurrence-free survival, the cumulative Z curve did not cross the traditional significance boundary. However, the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size has not yet been reached.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol-based TIVA is generally associated with better overall survival than volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery. Further large-scaled, high-quality randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Propofol; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33105278
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005237 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2011To systematically determine the most efficacious approach for preventing pain on injection of propofol. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically determine the most efficacious approach for preventing pain on injection of propofol.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and hand searching from the reference lists of identified papers.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing drug and non-drug interventions with placebo or another intervention to alleviate pain on injection of propofol in adults.
RESULTS
Data were analysed from 177 randomised controlled trials totalling 25,260 adults. The overall risk of pain from propofol injection alone was about 60%. Using an antecubital vein instead of a hand vein was the most effective single intervention (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.30). Pretreatment using lidocaine (lignocaine) in conjunction with venous occlusion was similarly effective (0.29, 0.22 to 0.38). Other effective interventions were a lidocaine-propofol admixture (0.40, 0.33 to 0.48); pretreatment with lidocaine (0.47, 0.40 to 0.56), opioids (0.49, 0.41 to 0.59), ketamine (0.52, 0.46 to 0.57), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (0.67, 0.49 to 0.91); and propofol emulsions containing medium and long chain triglycerides (0.75, 0.67 to 0.84). Statistical testing of indirect comparisons showed that use of the antecubital vein and pretreatment using lidocaine along with venous occlusion to be more efficacious than the other interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The two most efficacious interventions to reduce pain on injection of propofol were use of the antecubital vein, or pretreatment using lidocaine in conjunction with venous occlusion when the hand vein was chosen. Under the assumption of independent efficacy a third practical alternative could be pretreatment of the hand vein with lidocaine or ketamine and use of a propofol emulsion containing medium and long chain triglycerides. Although not the most effective intervention on its own, a small dose of opioids before induction halved the risk of pain from the injection and thus can generally be recommended unless contraindicated.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Bias; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intravenous; Pain; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21406529
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d1110