-
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 -
Anesthesiology Research and Practice 2020To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of... (Review)
Review
To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, -0.88, 7.60), = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, -2.82, 7.19), = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, -0.94, 7.49), = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.
PubMed: 32454816
DOI: 10.1155/2020/9637412 -
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 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2015Propofol is an agent commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED), but it can cause respiratory depression and hypotension.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Propofol is an agent commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED), but it can cause respiratory depression and hypotension. The combination of ketamine-propofol (K-P) is an alternative that theoretically provides a reduction in adverse events compared to propofol. The primary objective of this review was to determine if K-P has a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED than propofol alone. Secondary objectives were to compare the proportion of overall adverse events, sedation time, procedure time, and recovery time between K-P and propofol.
METHODS
Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing the use of K-P to propofol alone for PSA in the ED were included.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were included with a combined total of 932 patients (K-P = 520, propofol = 412). Five RCTs reported the proportion of adverse respiratory events; the pooled estimate revealed fewer adverse respiratory events with K-P compared to propofol (29.0% vs. 35.4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.99). There was no significant difference with respect to the proportion of overall adverse events (38.8% vs. 42.5%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.04). Procedure time was similar when the groups were compared.
CONCLUSIONS
The premise of combining ketamine with propofol is based on the many synergies that theoretically exist between these two agents. In this study, K-P had a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED compared to propofol alone.
Topics: Conscious Sedation; Drug Therapy, Combination; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Pain; Pain Management; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26292077
DOI: 10.1111/acem.12737 -
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 -
European Review For Medical and... Feb 2023Myoclonus is one of the main complications of etomidate anesthesia, which would develop into serious consequences during surgery. The present analysis was performed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Myoclonus is one of the main complications of etomidate anesthesia, which would develop into serious consequences during surgery. The present analysis was performed to evaluate systematically the effect of propofol on preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus in adult patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic electronic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to May 20, 2021, without any language restrictions. All randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of propofol on preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence and degree of etomidate-induced myoclonus.
RESULTS
1,420 patients (with 602 received etomidate anesthesia and 818 received propofol plus etomidate anesthesia) from 13 studies were eventually included. Whatever the intravenous propofol dose for anesthesia induction 0.8-2 mg/kg (RR:4.04, 95% CI [2.42,6.74] p<0.0001, I2=56.5%), or the dose of propofol for anesthesia induction 0.5-0.8 mg/kg (RR:3.26, 95% CI [2.03,5.22] p<0.0001, I2=0%), or the dose of propofol for anesthesia induction 0.25-0.5mg/kg (RR:1.68, 95% CI [1.1,2.56] p=0.0160, I2=0%), combination of propofol and etomidate could significantly decrease the occurrence of etomidate-related myoclonus (RR=2.99, 95% CI [2.40, 3.71] p<0.0001, I2=43.4%), compared with etomidate alone. In addition, propofol plus etomidate attenuated the incidence of mild (RR:3.40, 95% CI [1.7,6.82] p=0.0010, I2=54.3%), moderate (RR:5.4, 95% CI [3.01, 9.67] p<0.0001, I2=12.6%), severe (RR:4.15, 95% CI [2.11, 8.13] p<0.0001, I2=0%) of etomidate-induced myoclonus without adverse effects except for the increased incidence of pain on injection (RR:0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.83] p=0.0100, I2=41.5%) compared with etomidate alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis currently generates the evidence of combination of propofol with the dosage of 0.25-2 mg/kg and etomidate can alleviate the occurrence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus, with decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and comparative side effects of hemodynamic and respiratory depression of patients in comparison with etomidate alone.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anesthesia, General; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Etomidate; Myoclonus; Pain; Propofol
PubMed: 36876671
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202302_31366 -
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 -
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 -
Medicine Sep 2023Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.
CONCLUSION
Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Lidocaine; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37746949
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035021 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain controversial. This current study was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of volatile anesthetics and propofol on patients undergoing OPCAB surgery.
METHODS
A computerized search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 21, 2023, to identify relevant studies using appropriate search terms. The primary outcomes of interest were the levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (e.g., cTnI, cTnT), while secondary outcomes included extubation time, length of ICU stay, 30-day mortality, transfusion and thrombosis, and postoperative recovery, which were compared between two anesthesia techniques.
RESULTS
A search of databases produced 14 relevant studies with a combined total of 703 patients. Among them, 355 were allocated to the volatile anesthetics group and 348 to the propofol group. Our study reveals a statistically significant reduction in myocardial injury biomarkers among patients who received volatile anesthetics compared to those who received propofol ( < .001). Subgroup analysis showed that patients using sevoflurane had lower postoperative cardiac troponins levels compared to propofol ( = .01). However, desflurane and isoflurane currently have no significant advantage over propofol (all > 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay, and mortality between the two groups (all > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggested that volatile anesthetics, specifically sevoflurane, in adult OPCAB surgery provide a better cardioprotective effect than propofol.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023444277).
PubMed: 38034375
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1271557