Articles: propofol.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2000
Meta AnalysisPrevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review.
The best intervention to prevent pain on injection with propofol is unknown. We conducted a systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, hand searching, any language, up to September 1999) for full reports of randomized comparisons of analgesic interventions with placebo to prevent that pain. We analyzed data from 6264 patients (mostly adults) of 56 reports. On average, 70% of the patients reported pain on injection. Fifteen drugs, 12 physical measurements, and combinations were tested. With IV lidocaine 40 mg, given with a tourniquet 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol, the number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) to prevent pain in one who would have had pain had they received placebo was 1.6. The closest to this came meperidine 40 mg with tourniquet (NNT 1.9) and metoclopramide 10 mg with tourniquet (NNT 2.2). With lidocaine mixed with propofol, the best NNT was 2.4; with IV alfentanil or fentanyl, it was 3 to 4. IV lidocaine before the injection of propofol was less analgesic. Temperature had no significant effect. There was a lack of data for all other interventions to allow meaningful conclusions. The diameter of venous catheters and speed of injection had no impact on pain. ⋯ IV lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg) should be given with a rubber tourniquet on the forearm, 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol; lidocaine will prevent pain in approximately 60% of the patients treated in this manner.
-
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand · Feb 1999
Meta Analysis Comparative StudyA review of recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia: comparisons with isoflurane and propofol including meta-analysis.
Sevoflurane has a lower blood:gas partition coefficient than isoflurane and thus should be associated with a more rapid recovery from anaesthesia. ⋯ The observed differences between sevoflurane and isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia support the postulate that the use of sevoflurane is associated with a more rapid recovery from anaesthesia than either isoflurane or propofol.
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
A meta-analysis of nausea and vomiting following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or inhalational agents.
A number of prospective randomized comparator studies have suggested that there is a reduction in post-operative nausea and vomiting following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol compared with inhalational agents. We analysed these studies in more detail by examining the effects of induction agent, choice of inhalation agent, presence/absence of nitrous oxide, age of patient or use of opiate on the incidence of emesis. ⋯ These were examined individually and independently by two of the authors and log-odds ratios, calculated from the incidence data of each individual trial, were determined and combined using a fixed-effects meta-analysis approach. Patients who received maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol had a significantly lower incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in comparison with inhalational agents regardless of induction agent, choice of inhalation agent, presence/absence of nitrous oxide, age of patient or use of opiate.
-
Meta Analysis
Propofol anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled studies.
We have analysed randomized controlled studies which reported the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after propofol anaesthesia compared with other anaesthetics (control). Cumulative data of early (0-6 h) and late (0-48 h) PONV were recorded as occurrence or non-occurrence of nausea or vomiting. Combined odds ratio and number-needed-to-treat were calculated for propofol as an induction or maintenance regimen, early or late outcomes, and different emetic events. ⋯ This may be clinically relevant. In all other situations the difference between propofol and control may have reached statistical significance but was of doubtful clinical relevance. Treatment efficacy should be established within a defined range of control event rates for meaningful estimates of efficacy and for comparisons.
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Meta-analytic comparison of prophylactic antiemetic efficacy for postoperative nausea and vomiting: propofol anaesthesia vs omitting nitrous oxide vs total i.v. anaesthesia with propofol.
Data from two published and one new meta-analysis were reviewed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of three different anaesthetic regimens: (i) propofol anaesthesia compared with another anaesthetic (control); (ii) anaesthesia without nitrous oxide compared with the same anaesthetic with nitrous oxide (control); (iii) propofol anaesthesia without nitrous oxide (TIVA) compared with another anaesthetic with nitrous oxide (control). Efficacy (prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with control) was estimated using odds ratio and number-needed-to-treat methods, and compared within a range of 20-60% control event rates for early efficacy (0-6 h) and 40-80% for late efficacy (0-48 h). Propofol anaesthesia or omitting nitrous oxide had similar effects on vomiting, both early and late. ⋯ TIVA studies were documented poorly; appropriate comparison with other interventions were not possible. Efficacy of treatments should be compared within a setting-specific range of control event rates. There is insufficient evidence that TIVA with propofol is an anaesthetic technique with a low emetogenic potency.