Propofol vs traditional sedative agents for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Included studies	Country	Administrator	Procedure	Sedation	Sample size	Hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%)	Hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg)	Procedure duration (min)	Recovery time (min)	Jadad score
Chen et al[11], 2005	China	ICU physician	ERCP	Propofol	35	2	7	49.22 ± 24.51	5.20 ± 1.94	2
				Meperidine + scopolamine	35	3	0	69.59 ± 25.16	63.94 ± 78.02
Jung et al[10], 2000	Germany	Anesthesiologist	ERCP	Propofol	40		1			2
				Midazolam	40		0
Kongkam et al[13], 2008	Thailand	ACLS trained gastroenterologist	ERCP	Propofol	67	15	6	39.79 ± 32.49	17.24 ± 5.99	5
				Meperidine + midazolam	67	21	6	41.82 ± 21.85	34.25 ± 16.06
Krugliak et al[12], 2000	Israel	Anesthesiologist	ERCP	Propofol	15				13.1 ± 5.8	5
				Midazolam	17				58.4 ± 29.4
Riphaus et al[8], 2005	Germany	ICU physician	ERCP	Propofol	75	8	6		22 ± 7	5
				Meperidine + midazolam	75	7	4		31 ± 8
Wehrmann et al[9], 1999	Germany	Physician unspecified	ERCP	Propofol	99	11	7	27 ± 16	19 ± 8	4
				Midazolam + pentazocine	98	8	2	32 ± 14	29 ± 8

SBP: Systolic blood pressure; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.