Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND:Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hsiao-Chien Tsai, Yu-Cih Lin, Ching-Lung Ko, Horng-Yuan Lou, Ta-Liang Chen, Ka-Wai Tam, Chien-Yu Chen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4315567?pdf=render
id doaj-43f540f74a3744a6a225d2db40ba75ca
record_format Article
spelling doaj-43f540f74a3744a6a225d2db40ba75ca2020-11-25T01:25:09ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01102e011758510.1371/journal.pone.0117585Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hsiao-Chien TsaiYu-Cih LinChing-Lung KoHorng-Yuan LouTa-Liang ChenKa-Wai TamChien-Yu ChenBACKGROUND:Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy. METHODS:Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol. CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4315567?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hsiao-Chien Tsai
Yu-Cih Lin
Ching-Lung Ko
Horng-Yuan Lou
Ta-Liang Chen
Ka-Wai Tam
Chien-Yu Chen
spellingShingle Hsiao-Chien Tsai
Yu-Cih Lin
Ching-Lung Ko
Horng-Yuan Lou
Ta-Liang Chen
Ka-Wai Tam
Chien-Yu Chen
Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Hsiao-Chien Tsai
Yu-Cih Lin
Ching-Lung Ko
Horng-Yuan Lou
Ta-Liang Chen
Ka-Wai Tam
Chien-Yu Chen
author_sort Hsiao-Chien Tsai
title Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
title_short Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
title_full Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
title_fullStr Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
title_full_unstemmed Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
title_sort propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2015-01-01
description BACKGROUND:Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy. METHODS:Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol. CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4315567?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT hsiaochientsai propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT yucihlin propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT chinglungko propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT horngyuanlou propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT taliangchen propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kawaitam propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT chienyuchen propofolversusmidazolamforuppergastrointestinalendoscopyincirrhoticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
_version_ 1725114946589556736