Efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Author:

Yang Huan12ORCID,Shi Xiaoling1,Li Jinping2,Yang Longqiu12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology, Huangshi Central Hospital, Hubei, China

2. Medical College of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Hubei, China.

Abstract

Background: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97–8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30–6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93–2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = −2.82, 95% CI: −3.70 to −1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = −3.23, 95% CI: −4.01 to −2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = −3.62, 95% CI: −4.22 to −3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14–0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13–0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12–0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15–0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12–0.89; P = .03). Conclusion: This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3