|
|
|
题名
|
作者
|
年代
|
出处
|
被引量
|
| 1 | Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy:A systematic review and meta-analysis显示文摘BACKGROUND Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures.Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved postprocedure recovery times for patients.However,Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers,has a narrow therapeutic index,lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.AIM To compare,through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis,sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.METHODS A literature search was performed using MEDLINE,Scopus,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,Scopus,LILACS,BVS,Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases.The last search in the literature was performed on March,2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication.Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included.We divided sedation therapies to the following groups:(1)Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives;(2)Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids;and(3)Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid.The following outcomes were addressed:Adverse events,patient satisfaction with type of sedation,endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered,dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure.Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.RESULTS A total of 23 clinical trials were included(n=3854)from the initial search of 6410 articles.For Group I(Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids):The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms(RD:-0.01,95%CI:-0.03–+0.01,I2:22%).In 10 studies,the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms(RD:0.01,95%CI:-0.02–+0.04,I2:0%).Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups(RD:-0.03,95%CI:-0.06–+0.00,I2:25%).Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine+opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation(MD:+0.89,95%CI:+0.62–+1.17,I2:39%).The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal,there was no statistical difference between both arms(MD:-15.15,95%CI:-31.85–+1.56,I2:99%).For Group II(Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids):Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioidassociated(RD:-0.08,95%CI:-0.13–-0.02,I2:59%).There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.08–+0.08,I2:85%),desaturation(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.03–+0.02,I2:44%)or recovery time(MD:-2.04,95%CI:-6.96–+2.88,I2:97%)between sedation arms.The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity.(MD:70.36,95%CI:+53.11–+87.60,I2:61%).For Group III(Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid):Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.002–+0.02,I2:3%;RD:0.04,95%CI:-0.05–+0.13,I2:77%).Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol+benzodiazepine+opioid group,but with high heterogeneity(RD:0.15,95%CI:0.08–+0.22,I2:95%).CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. | Aureo Augusto de Almeida Delgado Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Igor Braga Ribeiro Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi Marcos Eduardo Lera dos Santos Wanderley Marques Bernardo Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de Moura | 2019 | World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2019，11，12： | 6 |
| 2 | Uterine natural killer cells are immunogenic in syngeneic male mice显示文摘 | Marcia C. Bizinotto Wirla M.S.C. Tamashiro Dirce L. Gabriel Aureo T. Yamada | 2008 | Journal of Reproductive Immunology2008，，1： | 1 |
| 3 | Mandibular asymmetry: literature review and case re- port 显示文摘 | Belmiro Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos Fabio Gonalves Aureo Andrade | 2012 | Braz J Otorhinolaryngol2012，78，4： | 1 |
| 4 | 成熟工艺的生态革新显示文摘产品质量更好,过程灵活性更高,同时能耗又更低,苏尔寿化工技术有限公司对乙醇胺生产提出的新型工艺技术思路保证了以上优点的实现。 | Peter Fassler Aureo Celeghin | 2009 | 流程工业2009，，16： | 0 |
| 5 | Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication for esophageal achalasia: A single-center randomized controlled trial显示文摘BACKGROUND Achalasia is a rare benign esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter(LES). The treatment of achalasia is not curative, but rather is aimed at reducing LES pressure. In patients who have failed noninvasive therapy, surgery should be considered. Myotomy with partial fundoplication has been considered the first-line treatment for non-advanced achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy(POEM), a technique that employs the principles of submucosal endoscopy to perform the equivalent of a surgical myotomy,has emerged as a promising minimally invasive technique for the management of this condition.AIM To compare POEM and laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication(LM-PF) regarding their efficacy and outcomes for the treatment of achalasia.METHODS Forty treatment-naive adult patients who had been diagnosed with achalasia based on clinical and manometric criteria(dysphagia score ≥ II and Eckardt score > 3) were randomized to undergo either LM-PF or POEM. The outcome measures were anesthesia time, procedure time, symptom improvement, reflux esophagitis(as determined with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire), barium column height at 1 and 5 min(on a barium esophagogram), pressure at the LES, the occurrence of adverse events(AEs), length of stay(LOS), and quality of life(QoL).RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the LM-PF and POEM groups regarding symptom improvement at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up(P = 0.192, P = 0.242, and P = 0.242, respectively). However, the rates of reflux esophagitis at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up were significantly higher in the POEM group(P = 0.014, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively). There were also no statistical differences regarding the manometry values, the occurrence of AEs, or LOS. Anesthesia time and procedure time were significantly shorter in the POEM group than in the LM-PF group(185.00 ± 56.89 and 95.70 ± 30.47 min vs 296.75 ± 56.13 and 218.75 ± 50.88 min,respectively;P = 0.001 for both). In the POEM group, there were improvements in all domains of the QoL questionnaire, whereas there were improvements in only three domains in the LM-PF group.CONCLUSION POEM and LM-PF appear to be equally effective in controlling the symptoms of achalasia,shortening LOS, and minimizing AEs. Nevertheless, POEM has the advantage of improving all domains of QoL, and shortening anesthesia and procedure times but with a significantly higher rate of gastroesophageal reflux. | Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Jose Jukemura Igor Braga Ribeiro Galileu Ferreira Ayala Farias Aureo Augusto de Almeida Delgado Lara Meireles Azeredo Coutinho Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura Rubens Antonio Aissar Sallum Ary Nasi Sergio A Sanchez-Luna Paulo Sakai Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de Moura | 2022 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2022，28，33： | 0 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员