Choi Geun Joo, Kang Hyun, Baek Chong Wha, Jung Yong Hun, Lee Je Jin
a Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine , Chung-Ang University College of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 Nov;33(11):1935-1943. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1370419. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
To compare the efficacy and safety of bolus infusion versus continuous infusion for propofol sedation.
We 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.
A 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; I = 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; I = 44%). The recovery time and incidences of desaturation, airway intervention, hypotension, and bradycardia were comparable between bolus and continuous infusion.
Propofol sedation by continuous infusion required a higher dose of propofol compared with bolus infusion, but the recovery time and frequency of complications were similar.
比较丙泊酚镇静时单次推注与持续输注的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了OVID-MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库（CENTRAL）、谷歌学术、Koreamed和Kmbase数据库，以确定所有比较丙泊酚镇静单次推注与持续输注的随机对照试验。我们评估了丙泊酚使用剂量、操作过程、镇静情况及恢复时间。还评估了呼吸和心血管并发症的发生率。
共纳入963例患者的12项研究。与单次推注相比，持续输注所需的丙泊酚剂量显著更高（标准化均数差[SMD]：-0.44；95%置信区间[CI]：-0.71至-0.16；I²=84%）。与单次推注相比，持续输注的镇静时间显著更长（均数差[MD]：-8.58分钟；95%CI：-15.13至-2.03；I²=44%）。单次推注和持续输注之间的恢复时间以及低氧血症、气道干预、低血压和心动过缓的发生率相当。
与单次推注相比，丙泊酚持续输注镇静需要更高剂量的丙泊酚，但恢复时间和并发症发生率相似。
