Abstract
Background The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature. Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population. Methods A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study. Results No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57–3.04, chi2 = 0.053, I 2 = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09–3.20). Conclusion Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low. How to Apply This Knowledge for Routine Clinical Practice Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.
Highlights
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in pediatric gastrointestinal diseases
Data regarding its use for pediatric GI endoscopic procedures are limited and remain a matter of debate. In this meta-analysis, we present a review and meta-analysis of the existing literature evaluating the safety of a propofol-only sedation regimen compared to other sedation regimens during endoscopic procedures in the pediatric population
After the full-text review, there were 2 studies excluded for being published in a non-English language, 21 studies excluded for involving an adult population, 5 studies excluded for not including a propofolonly arm, 1 study excluded for not having an intervention group, 1 study excluded for having a general anesthesia comparator as opposed to conscious sedation, and 2 studies excluded for an incorrect study design
Summary
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in pediatric gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology Research and Practice combinations for pediatric sedation include ketamine, propofol, midazolam, fentanyl, and pethidine [4]. Each of these drugs, can cause respiratory depression [5, 6]. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population. Higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
