{"title":"舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼围手术期疗效和安全性的比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析与试验序列分析。","authors":"Hyo Jin Kim, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02933-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sufentanil and remifentanil are commonly used during general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of perioperative sufentanil and remifentanil administration in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was registered in INPLASY (INPLASY202270070). A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify all RCTs comparing the efficacy of the intraoperative use of sufentanil to that of remifentanil. The primary outcome were the postoperative pain scores measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) or numerical rating scales (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the postoperative analgesic use, time to first analgesic need, intraoperative hemodynamic profiles, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), incidence of respiratory depression, and recovery characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pain score was significantly higher in remifentanil group than that in sufentanil group, with a small effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.70). Postoperative analgesic amount used was lower in sufentanil group than that in remifentanil group, with a medium effect size (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.99). In terms of hemodynamic profiles, intraoperative systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = - 6.30; 95% CI = - 10.76 to - 1.85), mean arterial pressure (MD = - 6.38; 95% CI = - 10.25 to - 2.51), and heart rate (MD = - 4.16; 95% CI = - 6.65 to - 1.68) were lower in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. Incidence of postoperative nausea (relative risk = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.71) was higher in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. The remifentanil group showed a faster recovery profile than the sufentanil group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with remifentanil, sufentanil demonstrated superior efficacy in postoperative pain management and superior safety profiles with respect to postoperative nausea and hemodynamic stability; however, remifentanil showed a faster recovery profile.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (INPLASY), NPLASY202270070.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462082/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of efficacy and safety profiles of perioperative sufentanil and remifentanil: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hyo Jin Kim, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02933-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sufentanil and remifentanil are commonly used during general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of perioperative sufentanil and remifentanil administration in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was registered in INPLASY (INPLASY202270070). A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify all RCTs comparing the efficacy of the intraoperative use of sufentanil to that of remifentanil. The primary outcome were the postoperative pain scores measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) or numerical rating scales (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the postoperative analgesic use, time to first analgesic need, intraoperative hemodynamic profiles, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), incidence of respiratory depression, and recovery characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pain score was significantly higher in remifentanil group than that in sufentanil group, with a small effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.70). Postoperative analgesic amount used was lower in sufentanil group than that in remifentanil group, with a medium effect size (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.99). In terms of hemodynamic profiles, intraoperative systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = - 6.30; 95% CI = - 10.76 to - 1.85), mean arterial pressure (MD = - 6.38; 95% CI = - 10.25 to - 2.51), and heart rate (MD = - 4.16; 95% CI = - 6.65 to - 1.68) were lower in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. Incidence of postoperative nausea (relative risk = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.71) was higher in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. The remifentanil group showed a faster recovery profile than the sufentanil group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with remifentanil, sufentanil demonstrated superior efficacy in postoperative pain management and superior safety profiles with respect to postoperative nausea and hemodynamic stability; however, remifentanil showed a faster recovery profile.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (INPLASY), NPLASY202270070.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462082/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02933-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02933-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼在全身麻醉中常用。本研究采用随机对照试验(RCTs)的系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在全面评价和比较全身麻醉下手术患者围手术期舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼的疗效和安全性。方法:本研究在INPLASY注册(INPLASY202270070)。使用MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar进行综合检索,以确定所有比较术中使用舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼疗效的随机对照试验。主要结局是术后疼痛评分采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)或数值评定量表(NRS)测量。次要结果是术后镇痛药的使用、到首次镇痛需要的时间、术中血流动力学特征、术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)、呼吸抑制发生率和恢复特征。结果:最终分析共纳入31项研究。瑞芬太尼组术后疼痛评分明显高于舒芬太尼组,但效应量较小(标准化平均差[SMD] = - 0.47; 95%可信区间[CI] = 0.24 ~ 0.70)。舒芬太尼组术后镇痛药用量低于瑞芬太尼组,效应大小中等(SMD = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.12 ~ 0.99)。在血流动力学方面,瑞芬太尼组术中收缩压(平均差值[MD] = - 6.30; 95% CI = - 10.76 ~ - 1.85)、平均动脉压(MD = - 6.38; 95% CI = - 10.25 ~ - 2.51)和心率(MD = - 4.16; 95% CI = - 6.65 ~ - 1.68)均低于舒芬太尼组。瑞芬太尼组术后恶心发生率(相对危险度= 1.39;95% CI = 1.13 ~ 1.71)高于舒芬太尼组。瑞芬太尼组比舒芬太尼组恢复更快。结论:与瑞芬太尼相比,舒芬太尼在术后疼痛管理方面表现出更好的疗效,在术后恶心和血流动力学稳定性方面表现出更好的安全性;然而,瑞芬太尼的恢复速度更快。系统评价注册:国际前瞻性系统评价注册(INPLASY), NPLASY202270070。
Comparison of efficacy and safety profiles of perioperative sufentanil and remifentanil: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Background: Sufentanil and remifentanil are commonly used during general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of perioperative sufentanil and remifentanil administration in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.
Methods: This study was registered in INPLASY (INPLASY202270070). A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify all RCTs comparing the efficacy of the intraoperative use of sufentanil to that of remifentanil. The primary outcome were the postoperative pain scores measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) or numerical rating scales (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the postoperative analgesic use, time to first analgesic need, intraoperative hemodynamic profiles, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), incidence of respiratory depression, and recovery characteristics.
Results: A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pain score was significantly higher in remifentanil group than that in sufentanil group, with a small effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.70). Postoperative analgesic amount used was lower in sufentanil group than that in remifentanil group, with a medium effect size (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.99). In terms of hemodynamic profiles, intraoperative systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = - 6.30; 95% CI = - 10.76 to - 1.85), mean arterial pressure (MD = - 6.38; 95% CI = - 10.25 to - 2.51), and heart rate (MD = - 4.16; 95% CI = - 6.65 to - 1.68) were lower in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. Incidence of postoperative nausea (relative risk = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.71) was higher in remifentanil group than in sufentanil group. The remifentanil group showed a faster recovery profile than the sufentanil group.
Conclusions: Compared with remifentanil, sufentanil demonstrated superior efficacy in postoperative pain management and superior safety profiles with respect to postoperative nausea and hemodynamic stability; however, remifentanil showed a faster recovery profile.
Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (INPLASY), NPLASY202270070.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.