Chen Yi-Ting, Sun Cheuk-Kwan, Wu Kuan-Yu, Chang Ying-Jen, Chiang Min-Hsien, Chen I-Wen, Liao Shu-Wei, Hung Kuo-Chuan
Department of Anesthesiology, Chia-Yi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chia-Yi 61363, Taiwan.
Department of Emergency Medicine, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan.
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 9;10(8):1585. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081585.
The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = -7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.04 to -2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = -2.43, 95% CI -3.61 to -1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.
在药物诱导睡眠内镜检查(DISE)期间,右美托咪定与丙泊酚相比的镇静效果仍不明确。检索了电子数据库(即Cochrane对照试验注册库、Embase、Medline和Scopus),从数据库创建至2020年12月25日,查找评估右美托咪定或丙泊酚对诊断为阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的成年患者进行DISE时镇静效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局是最低氧饱和度(mSaO2)的差异。纳入了2015年至2020年间发表的5项RCT(270名参与者)进行分析。与右美托咪定相比,丙泊酚与较低的mSaO2水平相关(平均差(MD)=-7.24,95%置信区间(CI)-12.04至-2.44;230名参与者)、内镜操作者的满意度较低(标准化MD=-2.43,95%CI-3.61至-1.26;128名参与者)以及低氧血症风险较高(相对比=1.82,95%CI 1.2至2.76;82名参与者)。然而,与右美托咪定相比,丙泊酚入睡时间更短,镇静失败风险更低。在其他结局方面未发现显著差异。与丙泊酚相比,右美托咪定对呼吸功能的不良影响较少,并在内镜操作者中提供了更高的满意度,但与镇静失败风险升高相关。