Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodsRelevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.ResultsSeven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval CI] = −0.95–7.88, I² = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I² = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54).ConclusionsDexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.