Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329160›Full record

ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025

Risk factors for adverse reactions to nurse-administered propofol during outpatient endoscopy: a cross-sectional study.

Renzo Inca Villanueva, Cynthia Bazán Montero, María Estela Bulnes-Montánchez, Lary Salazar Alva, José Salvador Carrillo, Alejandra Zevallos, Fernando Salazar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Renzo Inca VillanuevaEscuela Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru.
Cynthia Bazán MonteroDepartamento de Gastroenterología, Clínica Ricardo Palma, Lima, Peru.
María Estela Bulnes-MontánchezDepartamento de Gastroenterología, Clínica Ricardo Palma, Lima, Peru.
Lary Salazar AlvaDepartamento de Gastroenterología, Clínica Ricardo Palma, Lima, Peru.
José Salvador CarrilloEscuela Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Filial Chincha, Ica, Peru. jose.salvador@upsjb.edu.pe.
Alejandra ZevallosEscuela Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru.
Fernando SalazarDepartamento de Gastroenterología, Clínica Ricardo Palma, Lima, Peru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic procedures are essential for diagnosing and managing gastrointestinal conditions, often requiring sedation for patient comfort. Propofol is a common choice for outpatient sedation due to its rapid onset and predictable recovery time. Although propofol has an established safety profile, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can still occur. This study investigated the prevalence and risk factors associated with ADRs related to nurse-administered propofol sedation during outpatient endoscopic procedures at a private hospital in Peru.

methodWe conducted a retrospective study. The clinical records of 919 Peruvian patients who underwent endoscopic interventions under propofol sedation were reviewed. This study included patients between the ages of 18 and 69 years who had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification scores of I-III and who were hemodynamically stable with an oxygen saturation (SO2) > 90% before the procedure. Sedation was nurse-administered using standardized protocols. ADR data, including severity and causality assessment data, were collected. Data were collected and analyzed by SPSS, Inc., and the statistical significance was calculated at the p < 0.05 level.

resultsA total of 693 patients were included in the study, 30.9% of whom experienced at least one ADR, predominantly cardiovascular or respiratory events such as hypotension and hypoxia, with causality scores classified as probable or definitive. Among the ADRs, 35.8% (n = 87) were moderately severe, and 64.2% (n = 143) were mildly severe. There were no reports of any serious adverse events. An ASA class III status (p = 0.048, PR adjusted (PRa) = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.01-2.99) and a procedure time of more than 20 min (p < 0.0001, PRa = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.53-2.73) were significant risk factors for ADR occurrence. Patients with ADRs had longer recovery times than did those without ADRs (22 min ± 22.5 vs. 14 min ± 8, respectively; p < 0.001).

conclusionIn our work, moderate propofol sedation administered by trained nursing staff to outpatients undergoing interventional endoscopic procedures was generally safe but not free from risks. Vital parameters should be monitored regularly during long-term interventions and when patients are classified as ASA III.

Indexed as

EndoscopyHypnotics and SedativesPropofolAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeruRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsYoung AdultHypnotics and SedativesPropofolAdverse drug reactionsEndoscopic proceduresNursePeruPropofol

Identifiers

PMID40329160
PMCPMC12054303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.