Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Nov 15;8(11):19793-803.
eCollection 2015.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy

Yi Lu  1 , Li-Xiao Hao  2 , Lu Chen  1 , Zheng Jin  1 , Biao Gong  1
Affiliations
Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy

Yi Lu et al. Int J Clin Exp Med. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been suggested as an alternative method for sedative colonoscopy. However, as any new techniques, PCS introduction as a potential alternative to traditional intravenous sedation (IVS) has brought about challenges. To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages between PCS and IVS more comprehensively, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature.

Methods: Several databases were searched from inception to 1 April, 2015, for trials comparing PCS with IVS for colonoscopy. The outcomes of interest included time for cecal intubation, rate of complete colonoscopy, dose of sedative drugs used, pain scores, recovery time, complications. Inconsistency was quantified using I (2) statistics.

Results: In all, 12 trials were finally selected (1091 patients, with 545 in the PCS group, and 546 in the IVS group). The total propofol used, time for cecal intubation, rate of complete colonoscopy and pain score had no statistical difference between the two groups. However, PCS showed a reduction in the recovery time, incidence of oxygen desaturation and hypotension. The rates of other complications and patients' willingness to repeat the same sedation had no statistical difference between the two groups.

Conclusion: PCS is as feasible and effective as traditional IVS for colonoscopy, and there is a tendency that PCS shows its superiority in recovery time, incidence for oxygen saturation and hypotension.

Keywords: Sedation; colonoscopy; intravenous sedation; meta-analysis; patient-controlled sedation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of selection algorithm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of risk bias of the included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis of the total propofol used. PCS, patient-controlled sedation; IVS, intravenous sedation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis of the procedure time. A. Time for sedation preparation in fixed model; B. Time for sedation preparation in random model; C. Time for cecal intubation; D. Time for total procedure. PCS, patient-controlled sedation; IVS, intravenous sedation.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Meta-analysis of the rate of complete colonoscopy. PCS, patient-controlled sedation; IVS, intravenous sedation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meta-analysis of the complications. A. Rates for oxygen desaturation; B. Rates for hypotension; C. Rates for arrhythmia; D. Rates for amnesia and after-effect; E. Subgroup analysis of rates for amnesia and after-effect. PCS, patient-controlled sedation; IVS, intravenous sedation.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Meta-analysis of willingness to repeat the same sedation method. PCS, patient-controlled sedation; IVS, intravenous sedation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jover R, Herraiz M, Alarcon O, Brullet E, Bujanda L, Bustamante M, Campo R, Carreño R, Castells A, Cubiella J, García-Iglesias P, Hervás AJ, Menchén P, Ono A, Panadés A, Parra-Blanco A, Pellisé M, Ponce M, Quintero E, Reñé JM, Sánchez del Río A, Seoane A, Serradesanferm A, Soriano Izquierdo A, Vázquez Sequeiros E Spanish Society of Gastroenterology; Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Working Group. Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. 2012;44:444–451. - PubMed
    1. Williams CB. Comfort and quality in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:769–770. - PubMed
    1. Iber FL, Sutberry M, Gupta R, Kruss D. Evaluation of complications during and after conscious sedation for endoscopy using pulse oximetry. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39:620–625. - PubMed
    1. Heuss LT, Drewe J, Schnieper P, Tapparelli CB, Pflimlin E, Beglinger C. Patient-controlled versus nurse-administered sedation with propofol during colonoscopy. A prospective randomized trial. AM J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:511–518. - PubMed
    1. Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S, Masaki T, Love S, Williams CB. Patient-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation provides effective sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:418–421. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources