Suppr超能文献

雷米唑仑与丙泊酚用于胃镜镇静的安全性:一项荟萃分析。

The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Department of Anesthesiology, 984th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China.

出版信息

BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Jan 29;24(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02422-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety and efficiency of remimazolam with those of propofol in patients undergoing gastroscope sedation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SINOMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that reported on remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscope sedation from establishment to February 25, 2023. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17 were used to perform all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 26 randomized controlled trials involving 3,641 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that remimazolam had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.57; p < 0.01, GRADE high), hypoxemia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.49; p < 0.01, GRADE high), bradycardia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.51; p < 0.01, GRADE high), dizziness (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.65; p < 0.01, GRADE high), injection site pain (RR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.03-0.13; p < 0.01, GRADE high), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; p = 0.05, GRADE moderate), and hypotension (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.48; p < 0.01, GRADE low).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam can be used safely in gastroscopic sedation and reduces the incidence of respiratory depression, hypoxemia, bradycardia, injection site pain, and dizziness compared with propofol, and doesn't increase the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

摘要

背景

本荟萃分析旨在比较咪达唑仑和丙泊酚用于胃镜镇静患者的安全性和有效性。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Embase、Ovid、万方数据库、中国知网、SINOMED 和 ClinicalTrials.gov,以获取从建立到 2023 年 2 月 25 日报告咪达唑仑与丙泊酚用于胃镜镇静的研究。评估镇静效率和不良事件发生率作为结局。使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚评估工具版本 2 评估偏倚风险。使用 Review Manager 5.4 和 STATA 17 进行所有统计分析。

结果

共有 26 项随机对照试验纳入了 3641 名患者。结果表明,咪达唑仑的呼吸抑制发生率显著降低(风险比[RR] = 0.40,95%置信区间[CI]:0.28-0.57;p < 0.01,GRADE 高)、低氧血症(RR = 0.34,95%CI:0.23-0.49;p < 0.01,GRADE 高)、心动过缓(RR = 0.34,95%CI:0.23-0.51;p < 0.01,GRADE 高)、头晕(RR = 0.45,95%CI:0.31-0.65;p < 0.01,GRADE 高)、注射部位疼痛(RR = 0.06,95%CI:0.03-0.13;p < 0.01,GRADE 高)、恶心或呕吐(RR = 0.79,95%CI:0.62-1.00;p = 0.05,GRADE 中)和低血压(RR = 0.36,95%CI:0.26-0.48;p < 0.01,GRADE 低)发生率降低。

结论

咪达唑仑可安全用于胃镜镇静,与丙泊酚相比,呼吸抑制、低氧血症、心动过缓、注射部位疼痛和头晕的发生率降低,且恶心和呕吐的发生率未增加。

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