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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1037-1045 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | United European Gastroenterology Journal |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 Nov 1 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -