Trial reportMedicine2018
Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combination of propofol and nasal sufentanil or intravenous midazolam for colonoscopy: a comparative study.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2021Trial
- The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Trial
- Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages.Gut and liver · 2019Trial
- From target specificity to metabolic efficiency: Design and optimization of etomidate analogues for potential improvement in postoperative outcomes.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Article
- Carotid artery corrected flow time and respiratory variations of peak blood flow velocity for prediction of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients.BMC geriatrics · 2022Observational
- New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Etomidate and its Analogs: A Review of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2021Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRecent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly.
methodsA prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.
resultsThe incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032).
conclusionsWe recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.
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.