Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2483434409> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2483434409 endingPage "206" @default.
- W2483434409 startingPage "194" @default.
- W2483434409 abstract "Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates." @default.
- W2483434409 created "2016-08-23" @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5007542664 @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5052737070 @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5058192354 @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5072398062 @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5084707038 @default.
- W2483434409 creator A5089041959 @default.
- W2483434409 date "2017-02-01" @default.
- W2483434409 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
- W2483434409 title "Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1481711197 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1530953858 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1972948545 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1973178597 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1983413261 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1986215651 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1990307343 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1995920079 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W1996435587 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2000123949 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2005847593 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2006219782 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2016675321 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2024513440 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2029612049 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2030157772 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2033508142 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2038400317 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2046685379 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2050384180 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2050681436 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2053400423 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2058467945 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2063120475 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2064253385 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2069246764 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2079396792 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2080821235 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2082144170 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2086236878 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2088243994 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2101010608 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2103026252 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2104365090 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2105321712 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2107328434 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2108541425 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2112885721 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2114653089 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2115823456 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2116951140 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2126930838 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2130538431 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2134602189 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2154639860 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2154759047 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2156098321 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2164012412 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2168626931 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2207024246 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W2991792334 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W4235727511 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W4251270910 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W4367277595 @default.
- W2483434409 cites W642824046 @default.
- W2483434409 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.013" @default.
- W2483434409 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27451091" @default.
- W2483434409 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
- W2483434409 type Work @default.
- W2483434409 sameAs 2483434409 @default.
- W2483434409 citedByCount "83" @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092016 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092017 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092018 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092019 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092020 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092021 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092022 @default.
- W2483434409 countsByYear W24834344092023 @default.
- W2483434409 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5007542664 @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5052737070 @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5058192354 @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5072398062 @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5084707038 @default.
- W2483434409 hasAuthorship W2483434409A5089041959 @default.
- W2483434409 hasBestOaLocation W24834344091 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C2776277131 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C2776814716 @default.
- W2483434409 hasConcept C2778000748 @default.