Etomidate versus propofol sedation for electrical external cardioversion: a meta-analysis
- Authors
- Choi, Geun Joo; Kang, Hyun; Baek, Chong Wha; Jung, Yong Hun; Ko, Jin Soo
- Issue Date
- Nov-2018
- Publisher
- TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
- Keywords
- Electrical cardioversion; Etomidate; Meta-analysis; Propofol; Sedation
- Citation
- CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, v.34, no.11, pp 2023 - 2029
- Pages
- 7
- Journal Title
- CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
- Volume
- 34
- Number
- 11
- Start Page
- 2023
- End Page
- 2029
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/cau/handle/2019.sw.cau/54014
- DOI
- 10.1080/03007995.2018.1519501
- ISSN
- 0300-7995
1473-4877
- Abstract
- Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of etomidate vs propofol sedation for electrical cardioversion. Methods: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed. Results: A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I-2 = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I-2 = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI = 4.59-17.23, I-2 = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I-2 = 31%, respectively). Conclusions: Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - ETC > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.