Current medical research and opinion · 2018
Etomidate versus propofol sedation for electrical external cardioversion: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Choi Geun Joo, Kang Hyun, Baek Chong Wha, Jung Yong Hun, Ko Jin Soo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of etomidate vs propofol sedation for electrical cardioversion.
METHODS: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I2 = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I2 = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI = 4.59-17.23, I2 = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I2 = 31%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.
METHODS: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I2 = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I2 = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI = 4.59-17.23, I2 = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I2 = 31%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.