• Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang, Chong Wha Baek, Yong Hun Jung, and Je Jin Lee.
• a Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine , Chung-Ang University College of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 Nov 1; 33 (11): 1935-1943.

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of bolus infusion versus continuous infusion for propofol sedation.MethodsWe searched OVID-MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, Koreamed, and Kmbase databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared bolus infusion with continuous infusion for propofol sedation. We evaluated propofol dose used, procedure, sedation, and recovery time. The incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular complications were also evaluated.ResultsA total of 12 studies of 963 patients were included. The required propofol dose was significantly higher in continuous infusion compared with bolus infusion (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.71 to -0.16; I2 = 84%). Sedation time was significantly longer in continuous infusion compared with bolus infusion (mean difference [MD]: -8.58 min; 95% CI: -15.13 to -2.03; I2 = 44%). The recovery time and incidences of desaturation, airway intervention, hypotension, and bradycardia were comparable between bolus and continuous infusion.ConclusionsPropofol sedation by continuous infusion required a higher dose of propofol compared with bolus infusion, but the recovery time and frequency of complications were similar.

14 keywords...

hide…