GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ENDOSCOPY
Online ISSN : 1884-5738
Print ISSN : 0387-1207
ISSN-L : 0387-1207
PROPOFOL VERSUS TRADITIONAL SEDATIVE AGENTS FOR ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION
Toshihiro NISHIZAWAHidekazu SUZUKIJuntaro MATSUZAKITakanori KANAINaohisa YAHAGI
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2016 Volume 58 Issue 2 Pages 132-138

Details
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 : PubMed, 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.
Content from these authors
© 2016 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top