-
Meta Analysis
Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis.
- Saurabh Sethi, Vaibhav Wadhwa, Adarsh Thaker, Ram Chuttani, Douglas K Pleskow, Sheila R Barnett, Daniel A Leffler, Tyler M Berzin, Nidhi Sethi, and Mandeep S Sawhney.
- Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
- Dig Endosc. 2014 Jul 1; 26 (4): 515-24.
Background And AimThe optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy.ResultsNine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension.ConclusionsPropofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation.© 2013 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2013 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.