Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Sang Won | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Geun Joo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Oh Haeng | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Il Jae | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kang, Hyun | - |
dc.contributor.author | Baek, Chong Wha | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jung, Yong Hun | - |
dc.contributor.author | Woo, Young Cheol | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-01-22T12:38:30Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018-09 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0915-5635 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1443-1661 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/cau/handle/2019.sw.cau/828 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background and AimPrevious randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated. ResultsA total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I-2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I-2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I-2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I-2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I-2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I-2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I-2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I-2 = 97.70%). ConclusionPCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT. | - |
dc.format.extent | 12 | - |
dc.publisher | WILEY | - |
dc.title | Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/den.13050 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, v.30, no.5, pp 580 - 591 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000443936700002 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85045837094 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 591 | - |
dc.citation.number | 5 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 580 | - |
dc.citation.title | DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY | - |
dc.citation.volume | 30 | - |
dc.type.docType | Review | - |
dc.publisher.location | 영국 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | digestive system | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | endoscopy | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | gastrointestinal | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | propofol | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | sedation | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | TARGET-CONTROLLED INFUSION | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | RANDOMIZED-CONTROLLED-TRIAL | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | DEEP SEDATION | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | PLUS PROPOFOL | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | MIDAZOLAM | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | REMIFENTANIL | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | COLONOSCOPY | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | ANESTHESIA | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | FENTANYL | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Gastroenterology & Hepatology | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Surgery | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Gastroenterology & Hepatology | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Surgery | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea (06974)02-820-6194
COPYRIGHT 2019 Chung-Ang University All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.