用于全身麻醉或镇静诱导的异丙酚与丙泊酚的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-16 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_104_24
Abdallah Saeed, Mariam Elewidi, Ahmad Nawlo, Amr Elzahaby, Asmaa Khaled, Abdalla Othman, Mohamed Abuelazm, Basel Abdelazeem
{"title":"用于全身麻醉或镇静诱导的异丙酚与丙泊酚的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Abdallah Saeed, Mariam Elewidi, Ahmad Nawlo, Amr Elzahaby, Asmaa Khaled, Abdalla Othman, Mohamed Abuelazm, Basel Abdelazeem","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_104_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; <i>P</i> = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; <i>P</i> = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; <i>P</i> < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; <i>P</i> = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460804/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Abdallah Saeed, Mariam Elewidi, Ahmad Nawlo, Amr Elzahaby, Asmaa Khaled, Abdalla Othman, Mohamed Abuelazm, Basel Abdelazeem\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_104_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; <i>P</i> = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; <i>P</i> = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; <i>P</i> < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; <i>P</i> = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460804/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_104_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_104_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:由于丙泊酚的优点,它一直被用作医疗实践中产生和维持全身麻醉的麻醉药物。然而,它也有缺点,包括注射引起的不适。最近,异丙酚作为一种很有前途的麻醉药物出现了,它可以克服与异丙酚相关的许多缺点。在这篇系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们评估了在不同的麻醉程序中,与异丙酚相比,环丙酚的有效性和安全性:研究方案已在系统综述国际前瞻性注册中心(ID:CRD42023458170)注册。在中央数据库、PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus 和 WOS 中检索了截至 2024 年 2 月 26 日的英文文献。使用RevMan进行了元分析。使用 RoB 2.0 工具评估偏倚风险。结果以风险比 (RRs)、平均差异 (MDs) 和 95% 置信区间 (CIs) 的形式报告:19项随机对照试验纳入了我们的分析,共有2841名参与者。环丙酚和异丙酚在内窥镜检查的成功率上没有差异(RR:1.01,95% CI:0.99,1.02;P = 0.44),而环丙酚则显著提高了全身麻醉/镇静的成功率(RR:1.01,95% CI:1.00,1.02;P = 0.04)。异丙酚明显降低了注射疼痛(RR:0.14,95% CI:0.09,0.22;P <0.001),降低了不良反应(RR:0.80,95% CI:0.69,0.92;P = 0.002),提高了患者满意度(标准化平均差(SMD):0.36,95% CI:0.24,0.48;P <0.001):在诱导全身麻醉和镇静方面,环丙酚的疗效与异丙酚相当,且不良反应较少,注射时疼痛较轻,患者满意度较高。这些综合研究结果表明,异丙酚今后可作为一种替代药物,确保有效的全身麻醉/镇静诱导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background and aims: Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures.

Methods: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; P = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; P < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
ABCs of anaesthesia private practice: Adapting, building and conquering. Anaesthetic management of a child with suspected Opitz-Kaveggia syndrome. Awake Seldinger technique-based tracheal intubation in near-total laryngeal obstruction. Bridging the pain gap after cancer surgery - Evaluating the feasibility of transitional pain service to prevent persistent postsurgical pain - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Challenges in central venous catheter placement due to thoracic venous anomaly in an infant - A case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1