文章摘要
环泊酚用于手术室外镇静和麻醉的有效性和安全性的Meta分析
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia outside the operating room: a meta-analysis
  
DOI：10.12089/jca.2024.07.011
中文关键词: 催眠药  镇静药  全身麻醉  Meta分析
英文关键词: Hypnotics  Sedatives  General anesthesia  Meta-analysis
基金项目:甘肃省自然科学基金（21JR1RA092）
作者单位E-mail
许云鹏 730000,兰州大学第一临床医学院  
冷玉芳 兰州大学第一医院麻醉科  
郑家怡 730000,兰州大学第一临床医学院  
李红瑞 730000,兰州大学第一临床医学院  
牛文杰 730000,兰州大学第二临床医学院  
薛兴 兰州大学第一医院日间手术中心  
马晓丽 兰州大学第一医院胸外科  
刘健 730000,兰州大学第一临床医学院[现在甘肃省妇幼保健院(甘肃省中心医院)麻醉科] medecinliujian@163.com 
摘要点击次数: 1400
全文下载次数: 350
中文摘要:
      
目的： 系统评价环泊酚在手术室外镇静和麻醉中的有效性和安全性。
方法： 计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）和维普等数据库，纳入关于环泊酚用于手术室外镇静和麻醉的有效性与安全性的随机对照试验（RCT），检索时间为建库至2023年6月，采用RevMan 5.4软件及Stata 15.0进行统计分析。
结果： 共纳入12篇RCTs，患者2 192例，其中环泊酚组1 154例，丙泊酚组1 038例。与丙泊酚组比较，环泊酚组麻醉诱导成功时间（MD=0.28 min，95%CI 0.08～0.47 min，P=0.006）和麻醉苏醒时间（MD=1.16 min，95%CI 0.44～1.87 min，P=0.001）明显延长，注射痛（OR=0.04，95%CI 0.02～0.06，P＜0.001）、低血压（OR=0.64，95%CI 0.49～0.83，P=0.0008）、低氧血症（OR=0.44，95%CI 0.21～0.91，P=0.03）、呼吸抑制（OR=0.19，95%CI 0.11～0.32，P＜0.001）发生率明显降低。两组镇静成功率、医师满意度、体动、心动过缓、恶心呕吐、头晕发生率差异无统计学意义。
结论： 环泊酚与丙泊酚用于手术室外麻醉的效果相当，但环泊酚对患者呼吸功能影响更小，血流动力学更稳定，且注射痛、低血压、低氧血症、呼吸抑制等不良反应发生率明显低于丙泊酚。
英文摘要:
      
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation and anesthesia outside the operating room.
Methods: Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation and anesthesia outside the operating room. The search covered all publications up to June 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software and Stata 15.0.
Results: Twelve RCTs were included, involving 2 192 patients, of which 1 154 were in the ciprofol group and 1 038 in the propofol group. Compared with the propofol group, the anesthesia induction time (MD = 0.28 min, 95% CI 0.08-0.47 min, P = 0.006) and recovery time (MD = 1.16 min, 95% CI 0.44-1.87 min, P = 0.001) were significantly longer in the ciprofol group, and the incidences of injection pain (OR = 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.06, P < 0.001), hypotension (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.83, P = 0.0008), hypoxemia (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.91, P = 0.03), and respiratory depression (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.32, P < 0.001) were significantly lower. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation success rate, physician satisfaction, the difference in heart rate before and after anesthesia induction, incidence of body movement, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, and dizziness.
Conclusion: The anesthetic effect of cyclopofol and propofol is similar when used for anesthesia outside the operating room. Compared to propofol, ciprofol offers comparable anesthetic effects for sedation and anesthesia outside the operating room, with a lesser impact on respiratory function and more stable hemodynamics. Ciprofol also significantly lowers the incidence of adverse reactions such as injection pain, hypotension, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭