Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis:A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

• 作者: Alberto Machado da Ponte Neto Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Igor Braga Ribeiro John Alexander Lata Guacho Marina Gammaro Baldavira Tucci Shailendra Singh Wanderley Marques Bernardo
• 来源期刊: 世界胃肠内镜杂志:英文版(电子版)
• 学科: 医学
• 关键词: SEDATION MIDAZOLAM PROPOFOL CIRRHOSIS Endoscopic ENDOSCOPY Metaanalysis
• 年，卷（期）: 2020,（8）
• 页码范围: 241-255
• 页数: 15页
• 分类号: R61

摘要

BACKGROUND Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures.Several sedation protocols are available,but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.AIM To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.METHODS This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines.Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE,EMBASE,Central Cochrane,LILACS databases.Only randomized control trials(RCTs)were included.The outcomes studied were procedure time,recovery time,discharge time,and adverse events(bradycardia,hypotension,and hypoxemia).The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials(RoB-2).Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro.The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.RESULTS The search yielded 3,576 records.Out of these,8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients(302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group)were included for the final analysis.Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups(MD:0.25,95%CI:-0.64 to 1.13,P=0.59).Recovery time(MD:-8.19,95%CI:-10.59 to-5.79,P<0.00001).and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group(MD:-12.98,95%CI:-18.46 to-7.50,P<0.00001).Adverse events were similar in both groups(RD:0.02,95%CI:0-0.04,P=0.58).Moreover,no significant difference was found for bradycardia(RD:0.03,95%CI:-0.01 to 0.07,P=0.16),hypotension(RD:0.03,95%CI:-0.01 to 0.07,P=0.17),and hypoxemia(RD:0.00,95%CI:-0.04 to 0.04,P=0.93).Five studies had low risk of bias,two demonstrated some concerns,and one presented high risk.The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time,recovery time,and adverse events;while low for discharge time.CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patien