Clinical Efficacy of Xenon Versus Propofol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yimeng Xia,Hongwei Fang,Jindong Xu,Chenfei Jia,Guorong Tao,Buwei Yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000010758
IF: 1.6
2018-01-01
Medicine
Abstract:Background:Interest in the anesthetic use of xenon, a noble gas, has waxed and waned for decades, and the clinical effects of xenon are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of xenon with that of propofol.Methods:Electronic searches were performed through December 2017 using various databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We identified thirteen trials that included a total of 817 patients.Results:Patients treated with xenon had a lower bispectral index (BIS) (weighted mean difference (WMD): -6.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.33 to -1.18, P=.02), a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (WMD: 7.00, 95% CI: 2.32-11.68, P=.003) and a lower heart rate (HR) (WMD: -9.45, 95% CI: -12.28 to -6.63, P<0.00001) than propofol-treated patients. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the effects of nondepolarizing muscular relaxants, the duration spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (WMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -8.79-6.91, P=.81), or the incidence of perioperative complications [assessed using the outcomes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (relative risk (RR): 2.01, 95% CI: 0.79-5.11, P=.14), hypotension (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.40, P=.25), hypertension (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.73-2.21, P=.39) and bradycardia (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36-2.74, P=1.00)].Conclusion:In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we found that xenon treatment resulted in a higher MAP, a lower HR, and a smaller BIS index than treatment with propofol.