Saudi journal of anaesthesia · 2025
Propofol-Fentanyl versus propofol-ketamine sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rees Elliott N, Hoade Lucy Ms, Mattey Luke
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal procedural sedation and analgesic regime for gastrointestinal endoscopy is uncertain. Ketamine and fentanyl are commonly used analgesic agents alongside propofol but both have significant side effect profiles.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of propofol-ketamine (PK) to propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched to identify all comparative studies comparing PF to PK sedation. Nine randomized control trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were procedure time and recovery time. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects. All outcome data analyses were conducted using random-effects modeling.
FINDINGS: Nine RCTs with a total of 1006 patients were analyzed (508 (50.5%) PF, 498 PK). Sedation-analgesia regimes with PF were associated with both shorter procedure times (mean difference (MD) = -1.670 minutes (95% CI, -2.890, -0.450); P < 0.01) and recovery times (MD = -1.215 minutes (95% CI,-2.131, -0.300)) compared with PK. In the PF group, there was a higher incidence of desaturation (PF: 18.03% vs PK: 7.84%, OR = 3.163 (95% CI, 1.552, 6.444); P < 0.01) and hypotension (PF: 17.20% vs PK: 8.33%, OR = 2.501 (95% CI, 1.296, 4.824); P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate certainty evidence that PF reduces procedure time and low certainty that it improves recovery time compared to PK for gastrointestinal endoscopy. The risk of potentially life-threatening hypotension and desaturation was significantly greater in the PF group.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of propofol-ketamine (PK) to propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched to identify all comparative studies comparing PF to PK sedation. Nine randomized control trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were procedure time and recovery time. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects. All outcome data analyses were conducted using random-effects modeling.
FINDINGS: Nine RCTs with a total of 1006 patients were analyzed (508 (50.5%) PF, 498 PK). Sedation-analgesia regimes with PF were associated with both shorter procedure times (mean difference (MD) = -1.670 minutes (95% CI, -2.890, -0.450); P < 0.01) and recovery times (MD = -1.215 minutes (95% CI,-2.131, -0.300)) compared with PK. In the PF group, there was a higher incidence of desaturation (PF: 18.03% vs PK: 7.84%, OR = 3.163 (95% CI, 1.552, 6.444); P < 0.01) and hypotension (PF: 17.20% vs PK: 8.33%, OR = 2.501 (95% CI, 1.296, 4.824); P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate certainty evidence that PF reduces procedure time and low certainty that it improves recovery time compared to PK for gastrointestinal endoscopy. The risk of potentially life-threatening hypotension and desaturation was significantly greater in the PF group.