Xue Minmin, Tian Jian, Zhang Jing, Zhu Hongbin, Bai Jun, Zhang Sujuan, Wang Qili, Wang Shuge, Song Xuzheng, Ma Donghong, Li Jia, Zhang Yongmin, Li Wei, Wang Dongxu
Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China.
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar;37(2):86-91. doi: 10.1007/s12664-017-0814-9. Epub 2018 Mar 9.
The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.
MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.
A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.000.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.832.05, p = 0.25).
This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.
结肠镜检查期间丙泊酚镇静的安全性尚不清楚，我们进行了一项荟萃分析，以评估接受丙泊酚镇静与传统镇静的患者发生穿孔的风险。
检索截至2016年12月的MEDLINE、CBM、VIP、CNKI和万方数据库。两名评价员独立评估检索到的文章的摘要。提取丙泊酚组和传统镇静组的穿孔情况数据，并采用随机效应模型进行合并。
本荟萃分析共纳入19项研究。与传统镇静相比，丙泊酚镇静并未增加穿孔风险（风险差=-0.00，95%可信区间-0.000.00，p=0.98；亚组分析：比值比=1.30，95%可信区间0.832.05，p=0.25）。
该荟萃分析表明，结肠镜检查期间，与传统镇静相比，丙泊酚镇静不会增加穿孔风险。
