-
Medicine Feb 2023Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.
METHODS
We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).
CONCLUSION
Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Propofol; Etomidate; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Colonoscopy
PubMed: 36820568
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032876 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in...
The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, < 0.0001, I = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, = 0.003, I = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, = 0.0007, I = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, < 0.0001, I = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, = 0.57, I = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.
PubMed: 36814492
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1101728 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jan 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The authors performed this network meta-analysis to compare different anesthetic drugs in reducing the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing the different anesthetic drugs for noncardiac surgery in elderly from inception until July, 2022. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD#42020183014). A total of 34 trials involving 4314 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery in elderly were included. The incidence of POCD for each anesthetic drug was placebo (27.7%), dexmedetomidine (12.9%), ketamine (15.2%), propofol (16.8%), fentanyl (23.9%), midazolam (11.3%), sufentanil (6.3%), sevoflurane (24.0%), and desflurane (28.3%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis also suggested dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with sevoflurane. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of POCD with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 87.4 and 81.5%. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sevoflurane; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Sufentanil; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36799783
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000001 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology Dec 2022This study sought to explore the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Sevoflurane...
Effects of sevoflurane and propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer placed under general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This study sought to explore the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia has the advantages of short induction time, stable hemodynamic, stable anesthesia maintenance and short recovery time, and its anesthetic effect is similar to that of propofol, so it is worthy of comparative analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, clinical research register and CQVIP databases were searched to retrieve the data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between October 2000 and October 2021 on the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRC. Applying the inclusion criteria, the literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation assessments were carried out for the included articles. The I test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity between the studies, and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.6 software provided by Cochrane.
RESULTS
A total of 12 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. There was statistically significant differences in changes in postoperative heart rate [odds ratio (OR) =3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.40, 5.27, P<0.00001, I=0%, Z=6.30], mean artery pressure (MAP) (OR =2.58, 95% CI: 2.04, 3.26, P<0.00001, I=58%, Z=7.87), the incidence of PONV (OR =1.73, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.17, P<0.00001, I=46%, Z=4.78), and the incidence of postoperative disturbance of consciousness (OR =2.09, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.07, P<0.00001, I=63%, Z=5.67) between the experimental group and the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Combining anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol had good prevention and treatment effects for PONV in patients with CRC who underwent a laparoscopy and had a moderate central sedation effect.
PubMed: 36636047
DOI: 10.21037/jgo-22-783 -
Medicinski Glasnik : Official... Feb 2023Aim To compare the outcome of sole dexmedetomidine or with other sedative drugs in paediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods Literature was...
Aim To compare the outcome of sole dexmedetomidine or with other sedative drugs in paediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods Literature was obtained from PubMed and ScienceDirect from 2010-2020 using key words: sedation, paediatric, dexmedetomidine, ambulatory, MRI, ketamine, propofol, midazolam. The literature selection was based on Participant, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO) analysis. All English full-text and peer-reviewed articles were included. The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability, respiratory compromise, and recovery time. The risk of bias analysis was assessed using Cochrane collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0). Result Of 106 studies, 17 studies were included with a total 3.430 paediatric patients undergoing MRI. Dexmedetomidine alone provides a more stable hemodynamic but longer recovery time than ketamine, propofol or midazolam. The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides more stable hemodynamics, especially in the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia, and does not significantly reduce airway configuration more than sole dexmedetomidine or ketamine. Intranasal dexmedetomidine is more recommended than its combination with midazolam. Combining dexmedetomidine with ketamine, propofol or midazolam provides a shorter recovery time. Conclusion A combination of dexmedetomidine with other sedatives such as ketamine, propofol and midazolam is better than sole dexmedetomidine for paediatric sedation during magnetic resonance imaging.
PubMed: 36435998
DOI: 10.17392/1532-22 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2022Postoperative delirium (POD) is one of the serious postoperative complications in elderly patients, which is always related to long-term mortality. Anesthesia is often...
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium (POD) is one of the serious postoperative complications in elderly patients, which is always related to long-term mortality. Anesthesia is often considered a risk factor for POD. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the impact of different anesthesia methods and anesthetics on POD.
MEASUREMENTS
We searched for studies published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to 18 March 2022. RevMan 5.3 and CINeMA 2.0.0 were used to assess the risk of bias and confidence. Data analysis using STATA 17.0 and R 4.1.2. STATA 17.0 was used to calculate the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and provide network plots with CINeMA 2.0.0. NMA was performed with R 4.1.2 software gemtc packages in RStudio.
MAIN RESULTS
This NMA included 19 RCTs with 5,406 patients. In the pairwise meta-analysis results, only regional anesthesia (RA) with general anesthesia (GA) vs. GA (Log OR: -1.08; 95% CI: -1.54, -0.63) were statistically different in POD incidence. In the NMA results, there was no statistical difference between anesthesia methods, and psoas compartment block (PCB) with bupivacaine was superior to the desflurane, propofol, sevoflurane, and spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine of POD occurrence.
CONCLUSION
Our study indicated that RA and GA had no significant effect on POD, and there was no difference between anesthesia methods. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, except for RA with GA vs. GA, the rest of the results were not statistically different. Besides, PCB with bupivacaine may benefit to reduce POD incidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/dis play_record.php?ID=CRD42022319499, identifier PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022319499.
PubMed: 36408115
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.935716 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Dec 2022The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam compared with propofol when used for procedural sedation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam compared with propofol when used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Data sources were PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicaTrials.gov, searched up to March 21, 2022. RCTs comparing remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing procedural sedation or general anesthesia were searched. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference, 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model. The trial sequential analysis was used for sensitivity analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Ten studies with 1813 patients were included. Compared with propofol, remimazolam had lower success rate of sedation/general anesthesia (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.03; P=0.004; N.=1402). However, remimazolam had lower incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, and injection pain than propofol. No difference in incidence of nausea and vomiting, time to awake and to discharge was found. Subgroup studies showed that remimazolam had lower success rate than propofol when used for procedural sedation, not general anesthesia. The trial sequential analysis adjusted confidence interval was 1.01 to 1.04 for success rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam could be alternatively used in procedural sedation and general anesthesia. Additional research is needed to develop higher quality evidence on the use of remimazolam, especially in general anesthesia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, General; Benzodiazepines; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Propofol
PubMed: 36326772
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16817-3 -
Disease Markers 2022Hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive gynecologic technique that is widely practiced in outpatient procedures. The choice of anesthesia is a key factor for the surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive gynecologic technique that is widely practiced in outpatient procedures. The choice of anesthesia is a key factor for the surgical outcome and postoperative recovery. This study was conducted to assess the effects of different anesthetic modalities based on dexmedetomidine in outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane-Library from database inception to December 31, 2021. Duplicate literature was excluded and screened separately for initial screening at three tiers: article title, abstract, and full text before deciding whether to include in this study against the above criteria. Results after analysis of categorical variables were expressed as ORR Ratio (95% CI) and continuous variables were expressed as Mean Difference (95% CI). Data collation and analyses were performed using the gemtc package in the R language.
RESULTS
Four trials were finally included with data for 301 participants, three anesthetic drugs, and five anesthetic modalities. A fixed-effects model was used for the different anesthesia modalities without significant heterogeneity (all I2<20%) in the analysis of adverse events (AEs), the incidence of respiratory depression, operative time, and time in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Remimazolam tosylate was associated with a lower incidence of AEs versus dexmedetomidine, and significant differences between dexmedetomidine and propofol were absent. Propofol and various doses of remimazolam tosylate resulted in a lower incidence of respiratory depression versus dexmedetomidine, with an absence of differences between propofol and dexmedetomidine. The operative time for different anesthetic modalities was, in descending order, dexmedetomidine < remimazolam tosylate (0.60 mg/kg/h <0.48 mg/kg/h) < propofol < remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h), despite the absence of intergroup differences. Propofol was associated with a longer time in PACU versus dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h); those of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h) were similar. The time in PACU for different anesthetic modalities, in descending order, was dexmedetomidine < remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h) < propofol. Propofol was associated with a longer time in PACU versus dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate.
CONCLUSION
In outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia, dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher incidence of AEs and respiratory depression and a shorter operative time and time in PACU versus remimazolam tosylate and propofol. Remimazolam tosylate showed safety benefits with a similar duration of PACU stay versus dexmedetomidine. Therefore, the choice of anesthetic drugs in outpatient surgery requires consideration of the patient's conditions and preferences.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthetics; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Network Meta-Analysis; Outpatients; Pregnancy; Propofol; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 36188426
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2408685 -
Anaesthesia Jan 2023We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen and conventional oxygen therapy during procedural sedation amongst adults and children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen and conventional oxygen therapy during procedural sedation amongst adults and children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials that reported the effects of high-flow nasal oxygen during procedural sedation. The primary outcome measure was hypoxaemia and the secondary outcomes were minimum oxygen saturation; hypercarbia; requirement for airway manoeuvres; and procedure interruptions. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). Nineteen randomised controlled trials (4121 patients) including three in children were included. Administration of high-flow nasal oxygen reduced hypoxaemia, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.37 (0.24-0.56), p < 0.001; minor airway manoeuvre requirements, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.11-0.59), p < 0.001; procedural interruptions, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.17 (0.05-0.53), p = 0.002; and increased minimum oxygen saturation, mean difference (95%CI) 4.1 (2.70-5.50), p < 0.001; as compared with the control group. High-flow nasal oxygen had no impact on hypercarbia, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.24 (0.97-1.58), p = 0.09, I = 0%. High-flow nasal oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxaemia regardless of the procedure involved, degree of fractional inspired oxygen, risk-profile of patients and mode of propofol administration. The evidence was ascertained as moderate for all outcomes except for procedure interruptions. In summary, high-flow nasal oxygen compared with conventional oxygenation techniques reduced the risk of hypoxaemia, increased minimum oxygen saturation and reduced the requirement for airway manoeuvres. High-flow nasal oxygen should be considered in patients at risk of hypoxaemia during procedural sedation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36044543
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15845 -
Cureus Jul 2022Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress... (Review)
Review
An Analytical Comparison Between Ketamine Alone and a Combination of Ketamine and Propofol (Ketofol) for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia From an Emergency Perspective: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress their consciousness to variable levels. Ketamine and propofol have been used historically for PSA. Because they each have their demerits, it was postulated that combining both drugs (ketofol) would result in a mixture with additive properties and lessen or eliminate the demerits attributed to each drug. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare ketamine alone and a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia from an emergency perspective. A systematic search was conducted on published studies from the databases of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, APA PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) until July 2022. The articles that were published on the online databases were authored between January 2007 and 2018. The selected papers were scanned and examined to check whether they met the eligibility criteria for the study. The search produced six articles that were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All six articles that passed the eligibility criteria were viable for the analysis. All the trials focused on the effectiveness of ketofol versus ketamine for PSA from an emergency perspective. Ketofol was found to be safe and more effective in comparison to ketamine for PTA.
PubMed: 36042988
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27318