Department of Anesthesiology, Huangshi Central Hospital, Hubei, China.
Medical College of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Hubei, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Aug 11;102(32):e34745. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034745.
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses.
Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03).
This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.
系统评价阿芬太尼联合丙泊酚与单纯丙泊酚用于无痛胃肠镜检查的疗效和安全性。
检索 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed、Embase、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方和维普数据库,从数据库建立到 2022 年 8 月,收集阿芬太尼联合丙泊酚与单纯丙泊酚用于无痛胃肠镜检查的随机对照试验。采用 RevMan 5.4 软件进行统计分析。
共纳入 13 项随机对照试验,涉及 1762 例患者。Meta 分析结果显示,与丙泊酚相比,阿芬太尼联合丙泊酚的平均动脉压[均数差(MD)=5.38,95%置信区间(CI):1.97-8.80;P=.002]、心率(MD=3.78,95%CI:1.30-6.26;P=.003)和脉搏血氧饱和度(MD=1.90,95%CI:0.93-2.78;P=.0001)更稳定;丙泊酚剂量更低(标准均数差=-2.82,95%CI:-3.70 至-1.94;P <.00001),苏醒时间(MD=-3.23,95%CI:-4.01 至-2.45;P <.00001)和定向力恢复时间(MD=-3.62,95%CI:-4.22 至-3.03;P <.00001)更短;恶心呕吐(相对风险[RR]=0.32,95%CI:0.14-0.71;P=.005)、躯体运动(RR=0.27,95%CI:0.13-0.54;P=.0002)、低血压(RR=0.23,95%CI:0.12-0.46;P <.0001)、呼吸抑制(RR=0.37,95%CI:0.15-0.89;P=.03)和咳嗽反射(RR=0.33,95%CI:0.12-0.89;P=.03)的发生率更低。
本荟萃分析发现,目前的证据表明,阿芬太尼联合丙泊酚优于单纯丙泊酚用于无痛胃肠镜检查,且不良反应发生率较低。由于纳入研究的质量和数量有限,需要更多高质量的研究来验证上述结论。