Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy

Harminder Singh; William Poluha; Mary Cheang; Nicole Choptain; Ernest Inegbu; Ken Baron; Shayne P Taback

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006268.pub2

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 1 Recovery time.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Group A	Group B	Group C	Comments
Kulling 2001	45 min: 0 (IQR ‐0.5 ‐0.5) 90 min: 0 (IQR ‐ 1.0 ‐0.5)	In between A and C Not significantly different from either A or C	45 min: 1.0 (IQR 0.0 ‐9.0) 90 min: 0.25 (IQR 0.0 ‐ 1.5)	Difference from baseline of the score on Triegger dot‐joining test. Less difference, better recovery. Recovery‐‐therefore better recovery in Group A (PCS propofol), as compared with C at 45 and 90 mins
Liu 2009	2.5 (0‐15.0)	0 (0‐7.5)	No group C in this study	Recovery time was reported as median (minutes) and range. Recovery time was s ignificantly longer in group A (p<0.0001)
Martinez‐Palli 2005	24	38	32	No measures of variance provided
Paspatis 2002	5 min: 9.5±0.6 10 min: 9.8±0.3 30 min: 9.9±0.1	5 min: 8.3±1.3 10 min: 8.5±1 30 min: 7.4±0.9	No group C in this study	Significantly higher Aldrete scores at 5, 10 and 30 minutes in Group A (Propofol)

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 2 Recovery time (minutes) in studies, which reported recovery time in formats which could not be meta‐analyzyed.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 3 Discharge time.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 4 Procedure duration.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 5 Cecal intubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 6 Patient Dissatisfication (dichotomous data).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 7 Patient Satisfication (continuous data).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 8 Patient Dissatisfication (combined).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 9 Pain Control (continuous outcome).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 10 Pain Control (dichotomous outcome).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 11 Pain Control (combined).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 12 Hypoxia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 13 Apnea.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 14 Respiratory depression requiring intervention.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 15 Arrhythmias.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 16 Hypotension.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 17 Blood pressure drop or lowest blood pressure during the procedure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 18 Colonic perforations.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 19 Sedation (failure to sedate).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 20 Sedation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Gastroenterologist	Anesthesiologist	Comments
Laquiere 2006	Average score on VAS= 90.8	Average score on VAS= 89	Not significantly different

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 1 Patient Satisfication.

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Gastroenterologist	Anesthesiologist	Comment
Laquiere 2006	16.7	17.7	No significant difference

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 2 Procedure duration (minutes).

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Gastroenterologist	Anesthesiologist	Comment
Laquiere 2006	6.6%	35.5%	"Desaturation" not defined No intervention required p<0.008

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 3 Hypoxia.

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Gastroenterologist	Anesthesiologist	Comment
Laquiere 2006	24.4%	44%	Hypotension not defined No intervention required p<0.008

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 4 Hypotension.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 1. Propofol Versus Traditional Agents

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Recovery time Show forest plot	11	776	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐16.59 [‐24.99, ‐8.18]

1.1 Propofol alone	4	249	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐14.68 [‐19.79, ‐9.58]
1.2 Propofol combined with another agent	7	527	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐17.36 [‐29.39, ‐5.34]
2 Recovery time (minutes) in studies, which reported recovery time in formats which could not be meta‐analyzyed Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

3 Discharge time Show forest plot	7	542	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐20.86 [‐30.94, ‐10.78]

3.1 Propofol alone	4	297	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐19.06 [‐28.08, ‐10.04]
3.2 Propofol combined with another agent	3	245	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐32.17 [‐64.84, 0.50]
4 Procedure duration Show forest plot	9	736	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.84 [‐1.02, 2.71]

4.1 Propofol alone	2	168	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐1.98 [‐6.12, 2.17]
4.2 Propofol combined with another agent	7	568	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.85 [‐0.26, 3.97]
5 Cecal intubation Show forest plot	9	1840	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.41 [0.22, 0.76]

5.1 Propofol alone	3	268	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 Propofol combined with another agent	6	1572	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.41 [0.22, 0.76]
6 Patient Dissatisfication (dichotomous data) Show forest plot	6	449	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.22 [0.11, 0.44]

6.1 Propofol alone	2	117	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.25 [0.09, 0.72]
6.2 Propofol combined with another agent	4	332	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.19 [0.07, 0.50]
7 Patient Satisfication (continuous data) Show forest plot	4	370	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.43 [‐0.00, 0.85]

7.1 Propofol alone	3	220	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.50 [‐0.17, 1.17]
7.2 Propofol combined with another agent	1	150	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.32 [‐0.02, 0.66]
8 Patient Dissatisfication (combined) Show forest plot	7		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.23, 0.53]

8.1 Propofol Alone	4		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.18, 0.60]
8.2 Propofol combined with another agent	3		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.14, 0.80]
9 Pain Control (continuous outcome) Show forest plot	6	633	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.03, 0.74]

9.1 Propofol alone	2	187	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.14 [‐0.53, 0.26]
9.2 Propofol combined with another agent	4	446	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.51 [0.17, 0.84]
10 Pain Control (dichotomous outcome) Show forest plot	5	344	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.12 [0.21, 5.97]

10.1 Propofol alone	3	220	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.20 [0.02, 1.79]
10.2 Propofol combined with another agent	2	124	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.64 [0.39, 18.04]
11 Pain Control (combined) Show forest plot	9		Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)	1.71 [1.02, 2.88]

11.1 Propofol Alone	3		Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.34, 1.33]
11.2 Propofol combined with another agent	6		Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)	2.27 [1.42, 3.63]
12 Hypoxia Show forest plot	15	1408	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.48, 1.31]

12.1 Propofol alone	5	407	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.25, 1.89]
12.2 Propofol combined with another agent	10	1001	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.47, 1.48]
13 Apnea Show forest plot	11	918	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.35 [0.56, 3.24]

13.1 Propofol alone	5	407	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.35 [0.56, 3.24]
13.2 Propofol combined with another agent	6	511	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
14 Respiratory depression requiring intervention Show forest plot	10	898	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.15, 2.89]

14.1 Propofol alone	3	268	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.01, 8.21]
14.2 Propofol combined with another agent	7	630	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.16, 4.18]
15 Arrhythmias Show forest plot	7	684	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.31, 1.55]

15.1 Propofol alone	3	220	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.09, 3.46]
15.2 Propofol combined with another agent	4	464	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.30, 1.80]
16 Hypotension Show forest plot	6	548	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.55, 1.71]

16.1 Propofol alone	2	144	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.28, 3.83]
16.2 Propofol combined with another agent	4	404	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.51, 1.79]
17 Blood pressure drop or lowest blood pressure during the procedure Show forest plot	5	494	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.19 [‐2.55, 6.94]

17.1 Propofol alone	2	199	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.45 [‐9.40, 10.30]
17.2 Propofol combined with another agent	3	295	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.63 [‐4.47, 11.72]
18 Colonic perforations Show forest plot	1	7286	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.87 [0.60, 13.83]

18.1 Propofol alone	1	7286	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.87 [0.60, 13.83]
18.2 Propofol combined with another agent	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
19 Sedation (failure to sedate) Show forest plot	2	277	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.03 [0.00, 1.43]

19.1 Propofol alone	1	99	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.20 [0.07, 0.60]
19.2 Propofol combined with another agent	1	178	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
20 Sedation Show forest plot	6	521	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.41 [‐0.45, 1.27]

20.1 Propofol alone	3	268	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.38 [0.93, 1.82]
20.2 Propofol combined with another agent	3	253	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.53 [‐0.98, ‐0.09]

Comparison 1. Propofol Versus Traditional Agents

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patient Satisfication Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

2 Procedure duration (minutes) Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

3 Hypoxia Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

4 Hypotension Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

Comparison 2. Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet