Clinical efficacy of xenon versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Interest in the anesthetic use of xenon, a noble gas, has waxed and waned for decades, and the clinical effects of xenon are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of xenon with that of propofol.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed through December 2017 using various databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We identified thirteen trials that included a total of 817 patients.

RESULTS

Patients treated with xenon had a lower bispectral index (BIS) (weighted mean difference (WMD): -6.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.33 to -1.18, P = .02), a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (WMD: 7.00, 95% CI: 2.32-11.68, P = .003) and a lower heart rate (HR) (WMD: -9.45, 95% CI: -12.28 to -6.63, P < 0.00001) than propofol-treated patients. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the effects of nondepolarizing muscular relaxants, the duration spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (WMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -8.79-6.91, P = .81), or the incidence of perioperative complications [assessed using the outcomes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (relative risk (RR): 2.01, 95% CI: 0.79-5.11, P = .14), hypotension (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.40, P = .25), hypertension (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.73-2.21, P = .39) and bradycardia (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36-2.74, P = 1.00)].

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we found that xenon treatment resulted in a higher MAP, a lower HR, and a smaller BIS index than treatment with propofol.