Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Juntaro Matsuzaki, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

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).

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)701-706
Number of pages6
JournalDigestive Endoscopy
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Nov 1

Keywords

  • endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)
  • meta-analysis
  • midazolam
  • propofol
  • sedative agent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this