Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology
Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 2/2018

09.03.2018 | Original Article

No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis

verfasst von: Minmin Xue, Jian Tian, Jing Zhang, Hongbin Zhu, Jun Bai, Sujuan Zhang, Qili Wang, Shuge Wang, Xuzheng Song, Donghong Ma, Jia Li, Yongmin Zhang, Wei Li, Dongxu Wang

Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background and Aims

The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.

Methods

MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = − 0.00, 95% CI − 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, Inadomi JM. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:888–94.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1899–1906, 906 e1.
3.
Luning TH, Keemers-Gels ME, Barendregt WB, Tan AC, Rosman C. Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:994–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Adeyemo A, Bannazadeh M, Riggs T, Shellnut J, Barkel D, Wasvary H. Does sedation type affect colonoscopy perforation rates? Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:110–4.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Javier JP, Gabriela P, Rosario A, David C, Cristina R, Fernando B. Iatrogenic perforation in diagnostic colonoscopy related to the type of sedation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:AB68.
6.
Bastaki M, Douzinas EE, Fotis TG, et al. A randomized double-blind trial of anesthesia provided for colonoscopy by university-degreed anesthesia nurses in Greece: safety and efficacy. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2013;36:223–30.
7.
Bielawska B, Day AG, Lieberman DA, Hookey LC. Risk factors for early colonoscopic perforation include non-gastroenterologist endoscopists: a multivariable analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:85–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Goudra B, Singh PM, Gouda G, Borle A, Carlin A, Yadwad A. Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:551–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Korman LY, Haddad NG, Metz DC, et al. Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:657–62.
10.
Ng JM, Kong CF, Nyam D. Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:8–13.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Okholm C, Hadikhadem T, Andersen LT, Donatsky AM, Vilmann P, Achiam MP. No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing nurse administered propofol sedation. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013;48:1333–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sipe BW, Rex DK, Latinovich D, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:815–25.
13.
Thornley P, Al Beshir M, Gregor J, Antoniou A, Khanna N. Efficiency and patient experience with propofol vs conventional sedation: a prospective study. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;8:232–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Ulmer BJ, Hansen JJ, Overley CA, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:425–32.
15.
Gasparovic S, Rustemovic N, Opacic M, Bates M, Petrovecki M. Comparison of colonoscopies performed under sedation with propofol or with midazolam or without sedation. Acta Med Austriaca. 2003;30:13–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Moerman AT, Foubert LA, Herregods LL, et al. Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anaesthesia care during colonoscopy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:461–6.
17.
Ivano FH, Romeiro PC, Matias JE, et al. Comparative study of efficacy and safety between propofol and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2010;37:10–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Cohen S, Glatstein MM, Scolnik D, et al. Propofol for pediatric colonoscopy: the experience of a large, tertiary care pediatric hospital. Am J Ther. 2014;21:509–11.
19.
Ja W, Pf S, Kn J, Aa H, Pw A. Propofol: multiple advantages for endoscopy and colonoscopy in 1,424 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;5:AB59.
20.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
21.
Chen J, Xu J, Yang Y, Yi C. Efficacy of intravenous propofol sedation during routine colonoscopy in children and hypertensive patients. Chin J Dis Endosc 2001;18:346–9.
22.
Li W, Zhang S, Ji M, Wu Y, Yu Z. Sedation with midazolam versus propofol in colonoscopies : A prospective randomized and controlled study. Chin J Min Inv Surg. 2007;7:180–2.
23.
Pan W, Bo Y, Guo Q, Chen Y, Lou X, LI Y. A comparison of Etomidate and propofol by pumbing for colonoscopy in aged patients. China Health Industry. 2014;12:17–9.
24.
Syaed El Ahl MI. Modified sevoflurane-based sedation technique versus propofol sedation technique: A randomized-controlled study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015;9:19–22.
25.
Goudra B, Nuzat A, Singh PM, Borle A, Carlin A, Gouda G. Association between type of sedation and the adverse events associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy: An analysis of 5 years' data from a tertiary center in the USA. Clin Endosc. 2016;50:161–9.
26.
Schroeder C, Kaoutzanis C, Tocco-Bradley R, et al. Patients prefer propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for sedation for colonoscopy: Results of a single-center randomized equivalence trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:62-9.
27.
Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Zuccaro G. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:1049–56.
28.
Birk J, Bath RK. Is the anesthesiologist necessary in the endoscopy suite? A review of patients, payers and safety. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9:883–5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Katherine MH, Jennifer LH, Glenn ME. More large polyps are seen on screening colonoscopy with deep sedation compared with moderate conscious sedation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:AB119–AB20.
30.
Metwally M, Agresti N, Hale WB, et al. Conscious or unconscious: the impact of sedation choice on colon adenoma detection. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:3912–5.
31.
Sethi S, Wadhwa V, Thaker A, et al. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis. Dig Endos. 2014;26:515–24.
32.
Bo LL, Bai Y, Bian JJ, Wen PS, Li JB, Deng XM. Propofol vs traditional sedative agents for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:3538–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2012;61:1050–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis
verfasst von
Minmin Xue
Jian Tian
Jing Zhang
Hongbin Zhu
Jun Bai
Sujuan Zhang
Qili Wang
Shuge Wang
Xuzheng Song
Donghong Ma
Jia Li
Yongmin Zhang
Wei Li
Dongxu Wang
Publikationsdatum
09.03.2018
Verlag
Springer India
Erschienen in
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0254-8860
Elektronische ISSN: 0975-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-017-0814-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

Progression of recurrent acute to chronic pancreatitis: More questions than answers!

Original Article

Prevalence of cardiovascular dysfunction and its association with outcome in patients with acute pancreatitis

Letter

Digital rectal examination—A reliable screening tool for dyssynergic defecation

Original Article

Predictors of 90-day mortality in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis: Experience with 183 patients at a tertiary care center from India

Original Article

Kinetics of liver regeneration in donors after living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective analysis of “2/3rd partial hepatectomy” model at 3 months

Original Article

Pre-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise