A meta-analysis of the effects of transnasal high-flow oxygen therapy in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effects of using transnasal high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2004 to April 2024 to collect relevant studies on the application of HFNC in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Multiple Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. RevMan 5.4 software was utilized for conducting the network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 12 RCTs involving 3,726 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that HFNC reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) compared with COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.53], [mean difference (MD) = 4.07, 95% CI: 3.14-5.01], and the difference was statistically significant. However, the baseline SpO2 levels and incidence of hypercapnia were not statistically significantly different between the HFNC and COT groups [MD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.49-0.07]; [OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.95-2.15]. In terms of procedure time, the difference between HFNC and COT was not statistically significant, and subgroup analyses were performed for the different types of studies, with standard deviation in the gastroscopy group (MD = 0.09, 95% CI: -0.07-0.24) and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (MD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.50-1.23). The results demonstrated a significant reduction in the adoption of airway interventions in the HFNC group compared to the COT group (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05-0.53), with a statistically significant difference; this result was consistent with those of the included studies. Conclusion: The application of HFNC improves the incidence of hypoxemia, enhances oxygenation, and reduces airway interventions during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, HFNC does not significantly affect baseline SpO2, hypercapnia, or procedure time. The limitations of this study must be acknowledged, and further high-quality studies should be conducted to validate these findings.

Safety and efficacy comparison of remimazolam and propofol for intravenous anesthesia during gastroenteroscopic surgery of older patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is characterized by rapid action and inactive metabolites. It is used as the general anesthetic for many clinical surgeries. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate whether remimazolam is superior to propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older patients. AIM: To compare the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol during gastroenteroscopy in older adults. METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases were queried for the relevant key words "remimazolam," "and propofol," "and gastrointestinal endoscopy or gastroscopy." The search scope was "Title and Abstract," and the search was limited to human studies and publications in English. Seven studies wherein remimazolam and propofol were compared were included for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: We selected seven randomized controlled trials involving 1445 cases for the analysis. Remimazolam reduced the hypotension (relative risk, RR = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.29-0.66, P = 0.000), respiratory depression (RR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.30-0.70, P = 0.000), injection pain (RR = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.05-0.25, P = 0.000), bradycardia (RR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.24-0.58, P = 0.000), and time to discharge [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.58, 95%CI: -0.97 to -0.18, P = 0.005], compared to those after propofol administration. No obvious differences were observed for postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.97-1.24, P = 0.151), dizziness (RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.43-1.36, P = 0.361), successful sedation rate (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.93-1.00, P = 0.083), or the time to become fully alert (WMD = 0.00, 95%CI: -1.08-1.08, P = 0.998). CONCLUSION: Remimazolam appears to be safer than propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older adults. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Study on different sequences of painless gastroenteroscopy in patients with difficult airway.

The selection of different examination sequences of painless gastroscopy in patients with difficult airway risk was explored in this study. A total of 45 patients undergoing painless gastroscopy with Mallampati airway score of III-IV were randomly assigned into two groups (A group and B group) according to the sequence of colonoscopy and gastroscopy. Group A was first examined by gastroscopy after anesthesia, and then by colonoscopy. Group B was examined in the opposite order, first by colonoscopy, and then by gastroscopy. Ramsay Sedation scores were evaluated every five minutes when gastroscopy was performed in the two groups. The dosage of propofol, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, recovery time, hospital leaving time, and adverse reactions after induction and endoscopy were recorded. The dosage of propofol and change of vital signs in B group was less than that in A group. Operation time, recovery time, hospital leaving time and postoperative adverse reactions have no significant difference between two groups. For patients at risk of difficult airway, colonoscopy followed by gastroscopy has more stable intraoperative vital signs and less propofol consumption.