Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy. METHODS:PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity. RESULTS:Fifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD?=?0.14, 95% CI?=?0.04-0.24; P?=?.005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR?=?3.07, 95% CI?=?1.73-5.44; P?

SUBMITTER: Chen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6531275 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen Lingyuan L Liang Xueyan X Tan Xinmei X Wen Haibin H Jiang Junsong J Li Yan Y

Medicine 20190501 20

<h4>Background</h4>Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systemat ...[more]

PMID: 31096522

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 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, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 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. Conclusion: 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. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

Project description:BackgroundPostinduction hypotension (PIHO) is a hemodynamic abnormality commonly observed during the induction of general anesthesia. Etomidate is considered a safer drug for the induction of anesthesia because it has only minor adverse effects on the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. Recent evidence indicates that the novel benzodiazepine remimazolam has minimal inhibitory effects on the circulation and respiration. However, the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus etomidate in the induction of anesthesia are unclear.ObjectiveTo further understand the potential of remimazolam in anesthesia induction, it is necessary to design a meta-analysis to compare its effects versus the classic safe anesthetic etomidate. The aim of this study is to determine which drug has more stable hemodynamics and a lower incidence of PIHO. Our study will also yield data on sedation efficiency, time to loss of consciousness, time to awakening, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting with the two drugs.MethodsWe plan to search the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases from the date of their creation until March 31, 2025. The language is limited to English and Chinese. The search terms are "randomized controlled trials," "etomidate," and "remimazolam." The incidence of PIHO is the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes include depth of anesthesia after induction, sedation success rate, time to loss of consciousness, hemodynamic profiles, recovery time, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Reviews, meta-analyses, case studies, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries will not be included. The heterogeneity of the results will be evaluated by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. RevMan software and Stata software will be used for data analysis. We will evaluate the quality of included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The confidence of the evidence will be assessed through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluations system.ResultsThe protocol was registered in the international PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registry in November 2023. As of June 2024, we have performed a preliminary article search and retrieval for further review. The review and analyses are expected to be completed in March 2025. We expect to submit manuscripts for peer review by the end of June 2025.ConclusionsBy synthesizing the available evidence and comparing remimazolam and etomidate, we hope to provide valuable insights into the selection of anesthesia-inducing drugs to reduce the incidence of PIHO and improve patient prognosis.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023463120; https://tinyurl.com/333jb8bm.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/55948.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets