151. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection.
- Author
-
Nishizawa, Toshihiro, Suzuki, Hidekazu, Matsuzaki, Juntaro, Kanai, Takanori, and Yahagi, Naohisa
- Subjects
- *
PROPOFOL , *BENZODIAZEPINES , *TRANQUILIZING drugs , *ENDOSCOPIC surgery , *ENDOSCOPY , *HYPOXEMIA , *HYPOTENSION - Abstract
Background and Aim Propofol has been suggested to be superior to benzodiazepines when used as a sedative agent for endoscopic examination. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection ( ESD). Methods Pub Med, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku- Chuo- Zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios ( OR) of developing restlessness, full awakening at 1 h post- ESD, hypoxia, and hypotension. Results We identified three randomized trials (298 patients) from the database search. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of restlessness and full awakening at 1 h post- ESD with propofol sedation were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [ CI]: 0.21-0.81) and 8.59 (95% CI: 4.29-17.2), respectively, without significant heterogeneity. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of hypoxia and hypotension with propofol sedation were 1.13 (95% CI: 0.58-2.21) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.25-3.41), respectively, indicating no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Propofol sedation during ESD is more effective as compared with traditional sedative agent. The risk of complications is similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF