七氟醚和丙泊酚对儿科围手术期呼吸系统不良事件的影响:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Caiping Li BD , Yongmei Zhu BD
{"title":"七氟醚和丙泊酚对儿科围手术期呼吸系统不良事件的影响:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Caiping Li BD ,&nbsp;Yongmei Zhu BD","doi":"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Perioperative respiratory adverse events continue to pose significant challenges in pediatric anesthesia. Research has hinted at a lower incidence of these complications in children anesthetized with propofol than sevoflurane. This study aimed to assess and compare respiratory complications in children undergoing general anesthesia with either sevoflurane or propofol during surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and manual searches to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 19, 2023. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was employed to evaluate the risk of bias in the selected studies. The pooled analysis of relevant data compared respiratory complications, vomiting, agitation, anesthesia duration, extubation time, and recovery time in pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>A total of 17 RCTs, containing 1,758 pediatric participants, were included and analyzed. Respiratory adverse events were examined, encompassing laryngospasm, apnea, cough, and SpO2. In comparison to sevoflurane, children subjected to propofol anesthesia demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of laryngospasm (<em>P</em> = .001), vomiting (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), and agitation (<em>P</em> = .029). Especially in patients receiving laryngeal mask airway, propofol anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of laryngospasm (<em>P</em> = .003) and agitation (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). At the same time, they exhibited an increased risk of apnea (<em>P</em> = .039). Notably, no statistically significant disparities were observed between sevoflurane and propofol concerning cough, SpO2 &lt; 95%, anesthesia time, extubation time, and recovery time. Administration of propofol following sevoflurane anesthesia did not significantly impact the occurrence of vomiting or the recovery time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While propofol presents an elevated risk of apnea, it concurrently yields a significant reduction in laryngospasm, vomiting, and agitation. Consequently, propofol emerges as a favorable anesthetic option for pediatric patients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","volume":"40 1","pages":"Pages 158-168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Sevoflurane and Propofol on Perioperative Respiratory Adverse Events in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Caiping Li BD ,&nbsp;Yongmei Zhu BD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.03.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Perioperative respiratory adverse events continue to pose significant challenges in pediatric anesthesia. Research has hinted at a lower incidence of these complications in children anesthetized with propofol than sevoflurane. This study aimed to assess and compare respiratory complications in children undergoing general anesthesia with either sevoflurane or propofol during surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and manual searches to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 19, 2023. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was employed to evaluate the risk of bias in the selected studies. The pooled analysis of relevant data compared respiratory complications, vomiting, agitation, anesthesia duration, extubation time, and recovery time in pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>A total of 17 RCTs, containing 1,758 pediatric participants, were included and analyzed. Respiratory adverse events were examined, encompassing laryngospasm, apnea, cough, and SpO2. In comparison to sevoflurane, children subjected to propofol anesthesia demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of laryngospasm (<em>P</em> = .001), vomiting (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), and agitation (<em>P</em> = .029). Especially in patients receiving laryngeal mask airway, propofol anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of laryngospasm (<em>P</em> = .003) and agitation (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). At the same time, they exhibited an increased risk of apnea (<em>P</em> = .039). Notably, no statistically significant disparities were observed between sevoflurane and propofol concerning cough, SpO2 &lt; 95%, anesthesia time, extubation time, and recovery time. Administration of propofol following sevoflurane anesthesia did not significantly impact the occurrence of vomiting or the recovery time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While propofol presents an elevated risk of apnea, it concurrently yields a significant reduction in laryngospasm, vomiting, and agitation. Consequently, propofol emerges as a favorable anesthetic option for pediatric patients.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 158-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089947224000972\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089947224000972","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:围术期呼吸系统不良事件仍然是儿科麻醉的重大挑战。研究表明,与七氟醚相比,使用异丙酚麻醉的儿童发生这些并发症的几率更低。本研究旨在评估和比较在手术中使用七氟醚或异丙酚进行全身麻醉的儿童的呼吸系统并发症:系统综述和荟萃分析:我们对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行了全面检索和人工检索,以确定截至2023年8月19日发表的相关随机对照试验(RCT)。采用 Cochrane 风险评估工具来评估所选研究的偏倚风险。对相关数据进行汇总分析,比较了接受七氟醚和丙泊酚麻醉的儿科患者的呼吸系统并发症、呕吐、躁动、麻醉持续时间、拔管时间和恢复时间:研究结果:共纳入并分析了 17 项 RCT,其中包括 1,758 名儿科参与者。对呼吸系统不良事件进行了研究,包括喉痉挛、呼吸暂停、咳嗽和SpO2。与七氟醚相比,使用异丙酚麻醉的儿童发生喉痉挛(P = .001)、呕吐(P 结论:异丙酚麻醉可显著降低呼吸道不良事件的风险:虽然异丙酚导致呼吸暂停的风险升高,但它同时显著减少了喉痉挛、呕吐和躁动。因此,异丙酚成为儿科患者的一种有利麻醉选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Sevoflurane and Propofol on Perioperative Respiratory Adverse Events in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

Perioperative respiratory adverse events continue to pose significant challenges in pediatric anesthesia. Research has hinted at a lower incidence of these complications in children anesthetized with propofol than sevoflurane. This study aimed to assess and compare respiratory complications in children undergoing general anesthesia with either sevoflurane or propofol during surgery.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We conducted comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and manual searches to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 19, 2023. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was employed to evaluate the risk of bias in the selected studies. The pooled analysis of relevant data compared respiratory complications, vomiting, agitation, anesthesia duration, extubation time, and recovery time in pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol.

Findings

A total of 17 RCTs, containing 1,758 pediatric participants, were included and analyzed. Respiratory adverse events were examined, encompassing laryngospasm, apnea, cough, and SpO2. In comparison to sevoflurane, children subjected to propofol anesthesia demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of laryngospasm (P = .001), vomiting (P < .001), and agitation (P = .029). Especially in patients receiving laryngeal mask airway, propofol anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of laryngospasm (P = .003) and agitation (P < .001). At the same time, they exhibited an increased risk of apnea (P = .039). Notably, no statistically significant disparities were observed between sevoflurane and propofol concerning cough, SpO2 < 95%, anesthesia time, extubation time, and recovery time. Administration of propofol following sevoflurane anesthesia did not significantly impact the occurrence of vomiting or the recovery time.

Conclusions

While propofol presents an elevated risk of apnea, it concurrently yields a significant reduction in laryngospasm, vomiting, and agitation. Consequently, propofol emerges as a favorable anesthetic option for pediatric patients.
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
2.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
279
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing provides original, peer-reviewed research for a primary audience that includes nurses in perianesthesia settings, including ambulatory surgery, preadmission testing, postanesthesia care (Phases I and II), extended observation, and pain management. The Journal provides a forum for sharing professional knowledge and experience relating to management, ethics, legislation, research, and other aspects of perianesthesia nursing.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信