地佐辛与丙泊酚用于胃肠镜检查的临床疗效和安全性比较：一项荟萃分析。

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Tianjin First Center Hospital, Tianjin, P.R. China.

出版信息

J Int Med Res. 2021 Jul;49(7):3000605211032786. doi: 10.1177/03000605211032786.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

目的

比较胃肠镜检查患者中使用右美托咪定和丙泊酚的临床疗效和安全性。

方法

从 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 等数据库中检索比较胃肠镜检查患者中右美托咪定和丙泊酚的相关研究。

结果

符合纳入标准的相关研究有 7 项（右美托咪定组，n = 238；丙泊酚组，n = 239）。诱导时间（加权均数差 [WMD] = 3.46，95%置信区间 [CI] = -0.95-7.88， = 99%）和恢复时间（WMD = 2.74，95% CI = -2.72-8.19， = 98%）差异均无统计学意义。亚组分析显示，两组低血压（风险比 [RR] = 0.56，95% CI = 0.25-1.22）和恶心呕吐（RR = 1.00，95% CI = 0.46-2.22）的风险差异无统计学意义，而右美托咪定组发生缺氧的风险较低（RR = 0.26，95% CI = 0.11-0.63），心动过缓的风险较高（RR = 3.01，95% CI = 1.38-6.54）。