TY - JOUR
T1 - The use of propofol versus dexmedetomidine for patients receiving drug-induced sleep endoscopy
T2 - A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
AU - Chen, Yi Ting
AU - Sun, Cheuk Kwan
AU - Wu, Kuan Yu
AU - Chang, Ying Jen
AU - Chiang, Min Hsien
AU - Chen, I. Wen
AU - Liao, Shu Wei
AU - Hung, Kuo Chuan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/4/2
Y1 - 2021/4/2
N2 - The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = −7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) −12.04 to −2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = −2.43, 95% CI −3.61 to −1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.
AB - The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = −7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) −12.04 to −2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = −2.43, 95% CI −3.61 to −1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114071755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114071755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm10081585
DO - 10.3390/jcm10081585
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85114071755
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 10
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 8
M1 - 1585
ER -