» Articles » PMID: 23800983

Lower Incidence of Emergence Agitation in Children After Propofol Anesthesia Compared with Sevoflurane: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview
Journal J Anesth
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2013 Jun 27
PMID 23800983
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Emergence agitation (EA) from general anesthesia has been reported as an adverse effect of sevoflurane in children. We describe a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the incidence of EA between children who underwent sevoflurane anesthesia and those who underwent propofol anesthesia.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify clinical trials that met our inclusion criteria. Prospective randomized trials comparing sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in children less than 15 years of age were included in the meta-analysis. Data from each trial were combined using the random effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity of data was assessed by Cochran's Q and I (2) tests. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for study quality, patient age, and type of surgical procedure.

Results: The meta-analysis included 14 studies, in which 560 patients received sevoflurane and 548 received propofol. The pooled OR for EA was 0.25 with a 95 % CI of 0.16-0.39 (P = 0.000), which indicates that propofol anesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of EA. The heterogeneity of data was not statistically supported (P = 0.191). All sensitivity analyses strengthened the evidence for the lower incidence of EA with propofol.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that EA in children is less likely to occur after propofol anesthesia compared with sevoflurane anesthesia.

Citing Articles

Emergence delirium in pediatric anesthesia: the urgent need for evidence-based guidelines.

Gamble J Can J Anaesth. 2025; .

PMID: 40011374 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02888-x.


Letter to the article by Daichi Fujimoto et al.

Li C, Chen Z J Anesth. 2024; .

PMID: 39382642 DOI: 10.1007/s00540-024-03414-5.


Emergence delirium: an overview with an emphasis on the use of electroencephalography in its management.

Davies L, Qi T, Ng A Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2024; 19(Suppl 1):S87-S95.

PMID: 39069651 PMC: 11566554. DOI: 10.17085/apm.24013.


Impact of general anesthesia on postoperative complications in orthognathic surgery: a retrospective comparison of total intravenous anesthesia versus volatile anesthesia.

Aijima R, Miura D, Takamori A, Kamohara A, Danjo A, Sakaguchi Y Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):16075.

PMID: 38992157 PMC: 11239665. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-66926-w.


Application of propofol-remifentanil intravenous general anesthesia combined with regional block in pediatric ophthalmic surgery.

Li M, Fei Y, Zhang X, Chen T, Li J, Sun X BMC Anesthesiol. 2024; 24(1):147.

PMID: 38632505 PMC: 11022467. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02531-8.


References
1.
Sikich N, Lerman J . Development and psychometric evaluation of the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale. Anesthesiology. 2004; 100(5):1138-45. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200405000-00015. View

2.
Mehta N, DeMunter C, Habibi P, Nadel S, Britto J . Short-term propofol infusions in children. Lancet. 1999; 354(9181):866-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75936-5. View

3.
Ozdemir Kol I, Egilmez H, Kaygusuz K, Gursoy S, Mimaroglu C . Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients. Clin Ther. 2008; 30(1):175-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.01.008. View

4.
Tang J, Chen L, White P, Watcha M, Wender R, Naruse R . Recovery profile, costs, and patient satisfaction with propofol and sevoflurane for fast-track office-based anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1999; 91(1):253-61. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199907000-00034. View

5.
Sutton A, Duval S, Tweedie R, Abrams K, Jones D . Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ. 2000; 320(7249):1574-7. PMC: 27401. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574. View