Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2016
[Meta analysis for the anesthesia effect and adverse reactions of etomidate and propofol on the painless abortion surgery].
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.
Wang Li, Li Wen, Xu Rui, Long Lihui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the anesthesia effect of etomidate and propofol on painless abortion surgery.
METHODS: After screening the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG, VIP database, the literatures regarding the anesthesia effect of etomidate and propofol on painless abortion surgery were collected from 1995 to 2014. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, the quality evaluation was performed and the data was analyzed by using RevMan5.3 software.
RESULTS: A total of 1 130 patients were included in 9 RCTs. The results of Meta analysis were as follows: the anesthesia induction time in the etomidate group was less than that in propofol group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.04, P=0.004); there were more adverse reactions, such as myoclonus, nausea and vomiting, in the etomidate group compared with the propofol group (P<0.001); the incidence of pain in the etomidate group was less than that in the propofol group (P<0.001); there was no significant difference in the incidence of respiratory depression between the 2 groups (P>0.05); the surgery time, analgesia and duration from withdrawal to the wake-up was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Etomidate had a shorter anesthesia induction time than propofol in the painless abortion surgery. The incidence of reverse reactions such as myoclonus, nausea and vomiting, was more common in application of etomidate, whereas the incidence of injection pain was more common in the use of propofol group. There was no significant difference in respiratory depression between the 2 drugs. The comprehensive efficacy of propofol is better than etomidate.
METHODS: After screening the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG, VIP database, the literatures regarding the anesthesia effect of etomidate and propofol on painless abortion surgery were collected from 1995 to 2014. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, the quality evaluation was performed and the data was analyzed by using RevMan5.3 software.
RESULTS: A total of 1 130 patients were included in 9 RCTs. The results of Meta analysis were as follows: the anesthesia induction time in the etomidate group was less than that in propofol group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.04, P=0.004); there were more adverse reactions, such as myoclonus, nausea and vomiting, in the etomidate group compared with the propofol group (P<0.001); the incidence of pain in the etomidate group was less than that in the propofol group (P<0.001); there was no significant difference in the incidence of respiratory depression between the 2 groups (P>0.05); the surgery time, analgesia and duration from withdrawal to the wake-up was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Etomidate had a shorter anesthesia induction time than propofol in the painless abortion surgery. The incidence of reverse reactions such as myoclonus, nausea and vomiting, was more common in application of etomidate, whereas the incidence of injection pain was more common in the use of propofol group. There was no significant difference in respiratory depression between the 2 drugs. The comprehensive efficacy of propofol is better than etomidate.