-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2008Propofol is increasingly used for sedation during colonoscopy, with many recent reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized case series. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol is increasingly used for sedation during colonoscopy, with many recent reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized case series.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to identify, analyze and summarize RCTs comparing the relative effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety of propofol for colonoscopy, to traditional sedatives (narcotics and/or benzodiazepines).The secondary objective was to synthesize the studies comparing propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Medline, Cancerlit, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry database between January 1980 and June 2007; and conference proceeding abstracts for DDW, EUGW and ACG between 1990 and June 2007. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing use of propofol and traditional agents or administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The data were pooled using the Cochrane Collaborations' methodology and statistical software RevMan 4.2.10.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary objective. Most studies included only healthy out-patients. Recovery and discharge times were shorter with use of propofol. There was higher patient satisfaction with use of propofol (OR for dissatisfaction 0.35, 95% CI 0.23, 0.53). There was no difference in procedure time, cecal intubation rate or complications. There was no difference in pain control with non- patient controlled sedation (PCS) use of propofol as compared to the traditional agents (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.58, 1.39). Although there was higher patient satisfaction (OR for dissatisfaction 0.42, 95% CI 0.20, 0.89), the pain control was inferior with use of PCS use of propofol as compared to the use of traditional agents (OR 3.09; 95% CI 2.15, 4.46).There was only one study comparing administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy, with no difference in procedure time or patient satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy for generally healthy individuals can lead to faster recovery and discharge times, increased patient satisfaction without an increase in side-effects. More studies with standardized end-points are needed to compare propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Colonoscopy; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 18843709
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006268.pub2 -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2023Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the... (Review)
Review
Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.
PubMed: 37719799
DOI: 10.1055/a-2117-8621 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a widely used treatment for severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and mania. The procedure involves applying...
BACKGROUND
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a widely used treatment for severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and mania. The procedure involves applying brief electrical stimulation to induce a seizure, and anesthesia is used to ensure sedation and muscle relaxation. Finding the right anesthetic agent with minimal side effects, especially on seizure duration, is crucial for optimal outcomes because seizure duration is an important factor in the effectiveness of ECT, but the anesthetic agents used can affect it.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to pool the results of all relevant studies comparing the two induction agents, etomidate and propofol, for motor and electroencephalogram (EEG) seizure duration outcomes.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases to identify the relevant articles. The primary outcome measures were motor and EEG seizure durations. Statistical power was ensured by performing heterogeneity, publication bias, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. Standard mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous outcomes, and a random-effects model was used.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 7 randomized control trials (RCTs), 7 crossover trials, and 2 cohorts. The overall motor seizure duration was statistically significantly longer with etomidate than with propofol. The overall result for EEG seizure duration was also longer with the use of etomidate over propofol and was statistically significant. In addition, subgrouping was performed based on the study design for both outcomes, which showed insignificant results in the cohort's subgroup for both outcomes, while the RCTs and crossover subgroups supported the overall results. Heterogeneity was assessed through subgrouping and sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis found that etomidate is superior to propofol in terms of motor and EEG seizure duration in ECT, implying potentially better efficacy. Hence, etomidate should be considered the preferred induction agent in ECT, but larger studies are needed to further validate our findings.
PubMed: 37915381
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1251882 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Benzodiazepines
PubMed: 37816162
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000710 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2023Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.
METHODS
Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.
CONCLUSION
Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.
Topics: Humans; Ketamine; Analgesics, Opioid; Propofol; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Saline Solution
PubMed: 37312027
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02167-0 -
Journal of Advanced Research Jul 2020Attenuation of an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial to preventing devastating postoperative visual loss following surgery. IOP is affected by several... (Review)
Review
Attenuation of an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial to preventing devastating postoperative visual loss following surgery. IOP is affected by several factors, including the physiologic alteration due to pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning and differences in anesthetic regimens. This study aimed to investigate the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia on IOP. We searched multiple databases for relevant studies published before October 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia on IOP during surgery were considered eligible for inclusion. Twenty studies comprising 980 patients were included. The mean IOP was significantly lower in the propofol-based TIVA group after intubation, pneumoperitoneum, Trendelenburg positioning, and lateral decubitus positioning. Moreover, mean arterial pressure and peak inspiratory pressure were also lower after intubation in the propofol-based TIVA group. Trial sequential analyses for these outcomes were conclusive. Propofol-based TIVA is more effective than volatile anesthesia during surgery at attenuating the elevation of IOP and should be considered, especially in at-risk patients.
PubMed: 32373356
DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.02.008 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2016Propofol is used both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Recent evidence shows that propofol has analgesic properties. This meta-analysis evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Propofol is used both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Recent evidence shows that propofol has analgesic properties. This meta-analysis evaluated differences in postoperative analgesia between general anaesthetic maintenance with intravenous propofol and inhalational anaesthetics. Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria and were included. Our outcomes were pain scores 2 and 24 h after surgery. No significant difference in pain scores was found at 2 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) -0.120 (-0.415-0.175) (p = 0.425). Propofol was associated with a statistically significant, albeit marginal, reduction in pain scores 24 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) -0.134 (-0.248 to -0.021) (p = 0.021). Data were insufficient to allow a meaningful analysis regarding 24-h morphine-equivalent consumption. Propofol was associated with reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk (95%CI) 0.446 (0.304-0.656) (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that propofol improves postoperative analgesia compared with inhalational anaesthesia 24 h after surgery, with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol
PubMed: 27506326
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13578 -
Journal of Pain Research 2021General anaesthesia is the commonly provided for breast cancer surgery, but the effects of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia on short-...
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia is the commonly provided for breast cancer surgery, but the effects of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia on short- and long-term outcomes after breast cancer surgery are not clear. In this study, we conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the superior anaesthetic for breast cancer surgery patients.
METHODS
We searched the Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases (up to January, 2021) for RCTs in which inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia were compared and short- and long-term outcomes were assessed in breast cancer surgical patients. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs with a total of 2201 patients were included. Compared with inhalational anaesthesia, propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia was associated with more postoperative rescue analgesia ( =0%, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, =0.001) but a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) ( =25.5%, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.81, <0.001) and postoperative rescue antiemetics ( =0%, RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.82, <0.001). Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia preserved nature killer cell cytotoxicity ( =86.2%, SMD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.13-1.39, =0.018), decreased IL-6 level ( =98.0%, SMD: -3.09, 95% CI: -5.70- -0.48, =0.021) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ( =0%, SMD: -0.28, 95% CI: -0.53- -0.03, =0.030), and increased 2-year recurrence-free survival rate ( =0%, RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20, =0.043) but did not affect recurrence or the overall survival rate (>0.05).
CONCLUSION
Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia increases postoperative rescue analgesia but reduces PONV compared with inhalational anaesthesia in breast cancer surgery. The benefit of propofol over inhalational anaesthetics in the preservation of anti-cancer immunity is obvious, but it is difficult to conclude that propofol can exert long-term benefits due to the small sample size.
PubMed: 34295185
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S315360 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Jun 2014Pain on injection is an acknowledged adverse effect (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Flurbiprofen axetil has been reported to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain on injection is an acknowledged adverse effect (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Flurbiprofen axetil has been reported to reduce the pain of injection. However, results of published papers on the efficacy of flurbiprofen axetil in managing pain on injection of propofol are inconsistent.
MATERIAL/METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to appraise the efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen axetil for controlling pain induced by propofol injection. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models, depending upon the heterogeneity of the included trials.
RESULTS
Compared with the placebo group, flurbiprofen axetil allows more patients to have no pain (RR 3.51, 95% CI 2.22-5.55, p=0.000), and decreases the cumulative number of patients with mild, moderate, and severe pain on injecting propofol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, p=0.000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, p=0.000; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.38, p=0.000, respectively). In the stratified analysis by the doses, flurbiprofen axetil at a dose of over 50 mg was found to be effective in reducing propofol-induced pain on injection; however, there were no significant differences in relieving pain between treatment and placebo groups with flurbiprofen axetil at a dose of 25 mg. In terms of drug safety, there were no adverse effects (AEs) reported between flurbiprofen axetil-based regimens and placebo regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
Flurbiprofen axetil, an injectable prodrug of flurbiprofen, can significantly prevent or relieve the pain induced by propofol injection. More studies are required to assess its adverse effects.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Flurbiprofen; Humans; Pain; Propofol; Publication Bias; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24935068
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890102 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.
METHODS
This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.
RESULTS
Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.
CONCLUSION
Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.
PubMed: 38605424
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00160-8