European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2021
Conscious sedation for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Silva Prathiba M, Carnegy Alasdair, Graham Christopher, Smith Paul P, Clark T Justin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of conscious sedation on pain control in office hysteroscopy.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from inception to the 30th October 2020 in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials investigating women undergoing office hysteroscopic procedures, allocated to either conscious sedation or a suitable comparator, where the outcome was pain. Data regarding adverse events, feasibility and satisfaction/acceptability were also collected. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. Standard mean differences (SMD) or Odds Ratios (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous (e.g. mean pain) and dichotomous (e.g. side-effects) outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS: The literature search returned 339 results, of which seven studies were included for systematic review, with five studies having data suitable for meta-analysis. Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared with local anesthesia, reduced pain during (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01), but not after (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.07) office hysteroscopy. No significant difference in side-effects were noted (OR 15.58, 95% CI 0.08 to 2891.91). Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared to an oral analgesic and antispasmodic, was associated with increased pain, both during (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49) and after (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93) hysteroscopy and had significantly more side-effects (OR 134.33, 95% CI 16.14 to 1118.17). Inhalational conscious sedation (70% N2O/30% O2), when compared to oral analgesia and anxiolysis, showed the greatest reduction in pain during hysteroscopy (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.52), however side-effects were not reported. Whilst patients and hysteroscopists were more satisfied with deeper levels of sedation, resulting side-effects, such as delirium, increased the level of post-procedural attention required, leading to a significantly lower level of satisfaction amongst nursing staff.
CONCLUSION: The routine use of conscious sedation in contemporary hysteroscopic practice should be avoided in the absence of any clear reduction in pain and a higher risk of side-effects.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from inception to the 30th October 2020 in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials investigating women undergoing office hysteroscopic procedures, allocated to either conscious sedation or a suitable comparator, where the outcome was pain. Data regarding adverse events, feasibility and satisfaction/acceptability were also collected. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. Standard mean differences (SMD) or Odds Ratios (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous (e.g. mean pain) and dichotomous (e.g. side-effects) outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS: The literature search returned 339 results, of which seven studies were included for systematic review, with five studies having data suitable for meta-analysis. Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared with local anesthesia, reduced pain during (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01), but not after (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.07) office hysteroscopy. No significant difference in side-effects were noted (OR 15.58, 95% CI 0.08 to 2891.91). Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared to an oral analgesic and antispasmodic, was associated with increased pain, both during (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49) and after (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93) hysteroscopy and had significantly more side-effects (OR 134.33, 95% CI 16.14 to 1118.17). Inhalational conscious sedation (70% N2O/30% O2), when compared to oral analgesia and anxiolysis, showed the greatest reduction in pain during hysteroscopy (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.52), however side-effects were not reported. Whilst patients and hysteroscopists were more satisfied with deeper levels of sedation, resulting side-effects, such as delirium, increased the level of post-procedural attention required, leading to a significantly lower level of satisfaction amongst nursing staff.
CONCLUSION: The routine use of conscious sedation in contemporary hysteroscopic practice should be avoided in the absence of any clear reduction in pain and a higher risk of side-effects.