Suppr超能文献

丙泊酚用于结肠镜检查镇静的效果和安全性:一项荟萃分析。

Effect and safety of propofol for sedation during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.

Department of Anesthesiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.

出版信息

J Clin Anesth. 2018 Dec;51:10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.07.005. Epub 2018 Jul 27.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedation agents for sedation during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University.

MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search through the database of Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. The continuous outcomes were expressed with weight mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI); and dichotomous outcomes were expressed with risk ratio (RR) with 95%CI. A fixed-effect model or random-effect model was used to pool the estimate according to the heterogeneity across included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving 2512 patients were included in this study. Compared with traditional sedation agents, propofol had better effects in the recovery time (WMD = -5.94 min, 95%CI: -9.24, -2.63; P < 0.001), discharge time (WMD = -33.57 min, 95%CI: -71.73, -4.60; P = 0.015), satisfaction score (SMD = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.13, 1.33; P = 0.017), time to sedation (WMD = -4.31 min, 95%CI: -4.93, -3.69; P < 0.001), and time to ambulation (WMD = -27.20 min, 95%CI: -29.84, -24.56; P < 0.001). Moreover, propofol had comparable effects with traditional sedation agents in terms of other outcomes, including procedure time (WMD = -0.38 min, 95%CI: -0.84, 0.08; P = 0.108), pain score (SMD = 0.22, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.65; P = 0.318), amnesia rate (RR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.78, 1.11; P = 0.431), apnea rate (RR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.15, 1.85; P = 0.314), decreased heart rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.04; P = 0.080), decreased blood pressure (RR = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.81, 1.66; P = 0.417), and complication rate (RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.33, 1.15; P = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that, propofol for sedation during colonoscopy can result in a faster recovery and discharge, a shorter time to sedation and ambulation, as well as improved patient satisfaction, but it did not increase the rate of complications. There is a need for more well-performed, large-scale trials to verify our findings.

摘要

研究目的

本研究旨在比较丙泊酚与传统镇静剂在结肠镜检查镇静中的疗效和安全性。

设计

荟萃分析。

设置

吉林大学中日联谊医院。

测量方法

我们通过 Pubmed、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库进行了全面的文献检索。连续结局用加权均数差(WMD)或标准化均数差(SMD)表示,置信区间(95%CI);二分类结局用风险比(RR)表示,置信区间(95%CI)。根据纳入研究的异质性,采用固定效应模型或随机效应模型来汇总估计值。

主要结果

本研究共纳入 19 项研究,涉及 2512 名患者。与传统镇静剂相比,丙泊酚在苏醒时间(WMD=-5.94 分钟,95%CI:-9.24,-2.63;P<0.001)、出院时间(WMD=-33.57 分钟,95%CI:-71.73,-4.60;P=0.015)、满意度评分(SMD=0.73,95%CI:0.13,1.33;P=0.017)、镇静时间(WMD=-4.31 分钟,95%CI:-4.93,-3.69;P<0.001)和活动时间(WMD=-27.20 分钟,95%CI:-29.84,-24.56;P<0.001)方面效果更好。此外,丙泊酚在其他结局方面与传统镇静剂相当,包括手术时间(WMD=-0.38 分钟,95%CI:-0.84,0.08;P=0.108)、疼痛评分(SMD=0.22,95%CI:-0.21,0.65;P=0.318)、遗忘率(RR=0.93,95%CI:0.78,1.11;P=0.431)、呼吸暂停率(RR=0.52,95%CI:0.15,1.85;P=0.314)、心率下降率(RR=0.73,95%CI:0.51,1.04;P=0.080)、血压下降率(RR=1.16,95%CI:0.81,1.66;P=0.417)和并发症发生率(RR=0.62,95%CI:0.33,1.15;P=0.131)。

结论

本研究表明,丙泊酚用于结肠镜检查镇静可加速苏醒和出院,缩短镇静和活动时间,提高患者满意度,但不会增加并发症发生率。需要更多设计良好、规模较大的试验来验证我们的研究结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验