Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures.
Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological sedation strategies for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Ciprofol-etomidate versus propofol-etomidate for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Effect of etomidate added to propofol target-controlled infusion in bidirectional endoscopy: A randomized clinical trial.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Sedation with a 1:1 mixture of etomidate and propofol for gastroscopy in hypertensive elderly patients.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Trial
- 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
- 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
- Incidence and Risk Factors for Hypoxia in Deep Sedation of Propofol for Artificial Abortion Patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Etomidate affects spatial learning and memory and neuronal apoptosis of rats via MAPK/ERK pathway.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Etomidate on Intraoperative Wake-Up Equality, Hemodynamics, and Cerebral Protection in Operation of the Brain Functional Area.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Big Sleep: Beyond Propofol Sedation During GI Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimAlthough propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.
methodsAs a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.
resultsIn total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).
conclusionsBES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.
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.