PROPOFOL VERSUS TRADITIONAL SEDATIVE AGENTS FOR ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION

DOI
  • NISHIZAWA Toshihiro
    Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine.
  • SUZUKI Hidekazu
    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine.
  • MATSUZAKI Juntaro
    Center for Preventive Medicine, Keio University Hospital.
  • KANAI Takanori
    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine.
  • YAHAGI Naohisa
    Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine.

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 内視鏡的粘膜下層剥離術におけるプロポフォールと従来型鎮静剤の比較：システマティックレビュー

Search this article

Description

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).<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>Conclusion : Propofol sedation during ESD is more effective as compared with traditional sedative agent. The risk of complications is similar.

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

  • CRID
    1390282679198286720
  • NII Article ID
    130005127292
  • DOI
    10.11280/gee.58.132
  • ISSN
    18845738
    03871207
  • Text Lang
    ja
  • Data Source
    • JaLC
    • CiNii Articles
  • Abstract License Flag
    Disallowed

Report a problem

Back to top