ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2020
Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of music intervention on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography patients' pain, anxiety, and vital signs: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Remimazolam-etomidate versus remimazolam-propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Infusion of propofol with bispectral index monitoring does not reduce the amount of propofol used during transvaginal oocyte retrieval procedure.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Clinical effects of remimazolam alone or in combination with dexmedetomidine in patients receiving bronchoscopy and influences on postoperative cognitive function: a randomized-controlled trial.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Trial
- 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
- The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol in Patients Undergoing Elective Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreaticography - A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIt is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.
methodsIn this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events.
resultsOverall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.
conclusionContinuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time.
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.