SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.68 número1PREVALENCIA DE INCONTINENCIA FECAL EN PERSONAS QUE ACUDEN A POLICLÍNICOSDE UN HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIOCOLECISTITIS ACALCULOSA SECUNDARIA A INFECCIÓN POR VIRUS DE LA HEPATITIS A índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista chilena de cirugía

versión On-line ISSN 0718-4026

Resumen

CARMONA B, Javiera; AUAD A, Hernán; ALTERMATT C, Fernando  y  DAGNINO S, Jorge. Cardiopulmonary complications associated with traditional versus propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in adults: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT). Rev Chil Cir [online]. 2016, vol.68, n.1, pp.58-64. ISSN 0718-4026.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-40262016000100010.

Abstract Background: For sedation in endoscopy, propofol offers advantages for its fast recovery profile compared with traditional sedation (opioids and/or benzodiazepines). However, their use may be associated with deeper levels of sedation, increasing the risk of complications. Aims: To evalúate the safety of propofol compared with traditional endoscopic procedures. To analyze influence of operator sedation in endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: ECR comparing cardiopulmonary complications (hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia) between propofol and traditional sedation in adults undergoing endoscopy, were included. Wesearched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, LILACS. Relative risk (RR) was calculated. The data were analyzed using Rev Man v.5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration). Results: 8 ECR were selected, totaling 739 patients; of these, 381 received propofol and 358 traditional sedation. An anesthesiologistadministered sedation in 3 of the 8 papers, in patients with greater comorbidity and deeper level of sedation.Compared with traditional sedation, the RR of developing hypoxia, hypotension or bradycardia with propofolwas 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56-1.08), 1.37 (95% CI, 0.82-2.28), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.27-1.24) respectively. The RR of hypoxia in using propofol by an anesthesiologist was 1.59 (95% CI, 0.38-6.72) and non-anesthesiologist was0.75 (95% CI, 0.53-1.05). No statistically significant differences between propofol and traditional sedation for the analyzed adverse effects were found. Conclusions: Use of propofol compared with traditional sedation forendoscopic procedures do not increase the risk of cardiopulmonary complications. There were no significant differences when analyzing the professional in charge of sedation.

Palabras clave : Sedation; endoscopy; propofol; cardiopulmonary complications.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons