ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016
Outcomes of Propofol Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy Performed for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Esophagogastric Varices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Complications Associated With Anesthesia Services in Endoscopic Procedures Among Patients With Cirrhosis.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2020Article
- Small-cell lung cancer with Mallory-Weiss syndrome as the prominent manifestation.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2019Article
- Sedation during endoscopic procedures: a Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology Position Statement.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough propofol-based sedation can be used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), there is a potential risk of sedation-related adverse events, especially in patients with variceal bleeding.
aimWe compared adverse events related to propofol-based sedation during emergency endoscopy between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.
methodsClinical records of patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB under sedation were reviewed. Adverse events, including shock, hypoxia, and paradoxical reaction, were compared between the non-variceal and variceal bleeding groups.
resultsOf 703 endoscopies, 539 and 164 were performed for non-variceal and variceal bleeding, respectively. Shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding (12.2 vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001). All patients except one recovered from shock after normal saline hydration, and emergency endoscopy could be finished without interruption in most cases. The incidence of hypoxia and paradoxical reaction did not differ based on the source of bleeding (non-variceal bleeding vs. variceal bleeding: hypoxia, 3.5 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.275; paradoxical reaction interfering with the procedure, 4.1 vs. 5.5%, P = 0.442).
conclusionsAlthough shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding, most cases could be controlled without procedure interruption. Paradoxical reaction, rather than shock or hypoxia, was the most common cause of procedure interruption in patients with variceal bleeding, but the rate did not differ between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.