Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Naoki Hosoe, Haruhiko Ogata, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient’s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient’s satisfaction level (WMD: –0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): –1.149 to –0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: –0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were –0.029 (95% CI: –0.11 to 0.05), –0.080 (95% CI: –0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: –0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: –10.41, 95% CI: –13.77 to –7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1037-1045
Number of pages9
JournalUnited European Gastroenterology Journal
Volume5
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Dexmedetomidine
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Propofol
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Gagging
Patient Satisfaction
Randomized Controlled Trials
Heart Rate
Databases
Bradycardia
PubMed
Hypotension
Libraries

Keywords

  • Dexmedetomidine
  • endoscopy
  • meta-analysis
  • propofol
  • randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy : A meta-analysis. / Nishizawa, Toshihiro; Suzuki, Hidekazu; Hosoe, Naoki; Ogata, Haruhiko; Kanai, Takanori; Yahagi, Naohisa.

In: United European Gastroenterology Journal, Vol. 5, No. 7, 01.11.2017, p. 1037-1045.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ddd7a909b574464d82febadfceed4c38,
title = "Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient’s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient’s satisfaction level (WMD: –0.678, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI): –1.149 to –0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95{\%} CI: –0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were –0.029 (95{\%} CI: –0.11 to 0.05), –0.080 (95{\%} CI: –0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95{\%} CI: –0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: –10.41, 95{\%} CI: –13.77 to –7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.",
keywords = "Dexmedetomidine, endoscopy, meta-analysis, propofol, randomized controlled trial",
author = "Toshihiro Nishizawa and Hidekazu Suzuki and Naoki Hosoe and Haruhiko Ogata and Takanori Kanai and Naohisa Yahagi",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2050640616688140",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "1037--1045",
journal = "United European Gastroenterology Journal",
issn = "2050-6406",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Nishizawa, Toshihiro

AU - Suzuki, Hidekazu

AU - Hosoe, Naoki

AU - Ogata, Haruhiko

AU - Kanai, Takanori

AU - Yahagi, Naohisa

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient’s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient’s satisfaction level (WMD: –0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): –1.149 to –0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: –0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were –0.029 (95% CI: –0.11 to 0.05), –0.080 (95% CI: –0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: –0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: –10.41, 95% CI: –13.77 to –7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

AB - Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient’s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient’s satisfaction level (WMD: –0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): –1.149 to –0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: –0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were –0.029 (95% CI: –0.11 to 0.05), –0.080 (95% CI: –0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: –0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: –10.41, 95% CI: –13.77 to –7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

KW - Dexmedetomidine

KW - endoscopy

KW - meta-analysis

KW - propofol

KW - randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032992097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032992097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2050640616688140

DO - 10.1177/2050640616688140

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85032992097

VL - 5

SP - 1037

EP - 1045

JO - United European Gastroenterology Journal

JF - United European Gastroenterology Journal

SN - 2050-6406

IS - 7

ER -