1. Home page
  2. Search

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

This item is provided by the institution :
Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology   

Repository :
Annals of Gastroenterology   

see the original item page
in the repository's web site and access all digital files if the item*



Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis (EN)
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
Saghir, Syed Mohsin
Singh, Shailender
Dam, Aamir
Mashiana, Harmeet
Bhogal, Neil
Chandan, Saurabh
Dhaliwal, Amaninder
Ramai, Daryl
Bhat, Ishfaq
Dhindsa, Banreet Singh
Taunk, Pushpak
Klapman, Jason
Sayles, Harlan
Esquivel, Rene Gomez
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
2021-11-20
Background Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model. Results A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedationrelated side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I2=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I2=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis. Conclusions In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings. Keywords Sedation, ERCP, anesthesia, adverse events, meta-analysis Ann Gastroenterol 2021; 34 (6): 879-887 (EN)
English
Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology (EN)
1792-7463
1108-7471
Annals of Gastroenterology; Volume 34, No 6 (2021); 879 (EN)
Copyright (c) 2021 Annals of Gastroenterology (EN)
Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology
Original Articles



*Institutions are responsible for keeping their URLs functional (digital file, item page in repository site)