<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
<PublisherName>jmedicalcasereports</PublisherName>
<JournalTitle>Frontiers in Medical Case Reports</JournalTitle>
<PISSN>I</PISSN>
<EISSN>S</EISSN>
<Volume-Issue>Volume 1; Issue 1, (Jan-Jun,2021)</Volume-Issue>
<PartNumber/>
<IssueTopic>Multidisciplinary</IssueTopic>
<IssueLanguage>English</IssueLanguage>
<Season>Archives of Medical and Clinical Research</Season>
<SpecialIssue>N</SpecialIssue>
<SupplementaryIssue>N</SupplementaryIssue>
<IssueOA>Y</IssueOA>
<PubDate>
<Year>-0001</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>30</Day>
</PubDate>
<ArticleType>Medical and Clinical Research</ArticleType>
<ArticleTitle>Propofol Versus Barbiturates as an Inducing Agent in Elective Cesarean Section: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</ArticleTitle>
<SubTitle/>
<ArticleLanguage>English</ArticleLanguage>
<ArticleOA>Y</ArticleOA>
<FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
<LastPage>28</LastPage>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
<FirstName>Marcelino Sánchez</FirstName>
<LastName>Tamayo</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>N</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
<FirstName>Miguel Liván Sánchez</FirstName>
<LastName>Martín</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>Y</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
<FirstName>Eivet García</FirstName>
<LastName>Real</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>Y</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
<FirstName>Dianamary Brito</FirstName>
<LastName>Herrera</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>Y</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
<FirstName>Lisbet Díaz</FirstName>
<LastName>Fonseca</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>Y</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
<FirstName>Cirilo Piedra</FirstName>
<LastName>Torres</LastName>
<AuthorLanguage>English</AuthorLanguage>
<Affiliation/>
<CorrespondingAuthor>Y</CorrespondingAuthor>
<ORCID/>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<DOI/>
<Abstract>Introduction: The choice of the anesthetic agent when it is necessary to provide general anesthesia to the obstetric patient to perform the cesarean section is a controversial issue, especially because the short and longterm effects that it could develop in the newborn are not fully known. Objective: To evaluate the neonatal results of the use of Propofol versus Barbiturates as an inducing agent for anesthesia for elective cesarean section. Methods: A systematic review was carried out with meta-analysis of clinical trials and randomized comparative studies showing neonatal outcomes taking into account the pharmacological comparison according to the neonatal physical state, the adaptive and neurological capacity, the presence of hypoxia and acidosis, as well as the need admission to the intensive care unit. The review was performed in the Cochran library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), PubMed, SCISEARCH, Clinical Trial Registries, EBSCO, LILACS, Sciencedirect, Hinari databases in Spanish and English during the last 35 years, selecting articles from pregnant patients, with single fetuses, without maternal or fetal complications, who are scheduled for elective surgery. Data selection and analysis was carried out by two independent reviewers. Results: 17 studies with 1898 patients were included, 15 compared Propofol vs Thiopental, one study compared Propofol vs Methohexital, one investigation compared Propofol vs Tiamilal. Physical state at one minute of life favored the control group (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07 and 1.48). There was no relationship between the groups for the rest of the outcomes. Heterogeneity was low in the primary outcome. Conclusions: There was not enough scientific evidence to indicate the superiority of one drug over the other, so both could be good options for elective induction of caesarean section.</Abstract>
<AbstractLanguage>English</AbstractLanguage>
<Keywords>Neonatal Outcomes,Propofol,Barbiturates,Neonatal Depression,Neonatal Hypoxia</Keywords>
<URLs>
<Abstract>https://jmedicalcasereports.org/ubijournal-v1copy/journals/abstract.php?article_id=15234&title=Propofol Versus Barbiturates as an Inducing Agent in Elective Cesarean Section: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</Abstract>
</URLs>
<References>
<ReferencesarticleTitle>References</ReferencesarticleTitle>
<ReferencesfirstPage>16</ReferencesfirstPage>
<ReferenceslastPage>19</ReferenceslastPage>
<References>Abboud TK, Zhu J, Richafwsoiv M, Peres da SILVA E, Donovan M. Intravenous propofol vs thiamylal-isoflurane for caesarean section, comparative maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39: 205-209.
Afolabi BB and Lesi FE. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012.
Baker MT and Naguib M. The Challenges of Formulation. Anesthesiology 2005; 113: 860-876.
Boletand;iacute;n de la Federaciand;oacute;n Latinoamericana de Sociedades de Obstetricia y Ginecologand;iacute;a (FLASOG). 2015; 4.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Random-effects model. En: Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP (editors). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: John Wiley and; Sons, Ltd.; 2011.
and;Ccedil;akirtekin V, Yildirim A, Bakan N, and;Ccedil;elebi N, Bozkurt O. Comparison of the Effects of Thiopental Sodium and Propofol on Haemodynamics, Awareness and Newborns During Caesarean Section Under General Anaesthesia. Turk J Anaesth Reanim 2015; 43: 106-112.
Capogna G, Celleno D, Sebastiani M, Muratori F, Costantino P, Cipriani G, Passarelli F, Varrassi G. Propofol and thiopentone for caesarean section revisited: maternal effects and neonatal outcome. Int J Obstet Anesth 1991; 1: 19-23.
Celleno D, Capogna G, Emanuelli M, Varrassi G, Muratori F, Costantino P, Sebastiani M. Which induction drug for cesarean section? Comparison of Thiopental sodium, Propofol, and Midazolam. J Clin Anesth 1993; 5: 284-288.
Celleno D, Capogna G, Tomassetti M, Costantino P, Di Feo G, Nisini R. Neurobehavioral effects of Propofol on the neonate following elective caesarean section. Br J Anaesth 1990; 62: 649-654.
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, traductores. Manual Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemand;aacute;ticas de Intervenciones, versiand;oacute;n 5.1.0. Barcelona: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano; 2011.
Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, Yogasingam S, Taljaard M, Agarwal S, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 9(CD005528).
Dailland P, Cockshott ID, Lirzin JD, Jacquinot P, Jorrot JC, Devery J, Harmey JL, Conseiller C. Intravenus Propofol during cesarean section: Placental transfer, concentrations in breast milk, and neonatal effects. A preliminary study. Anesthesiology 1989; 71: 827-834.
Delgado C, Ring L, Mushambi MC. General anesthesia in obstetric. BJA education 2020 20: 201-207.
Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N. A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 158-163.
Fonseca Pand;eacute;rez JE. Cesand;aacute;rea por solicitud materna (CPSM). Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2017; 68: 7-11.
Garcia Alamino JM and Lopez Cano M. Revisiones sistemand;aacute;ticas con metaanand;aacute;lisis de ensayos cland;iacute;nicos:¿ es evidencia suficiente?. Cirugand;iacute;a Espaand;ntilde;ola 2020; 98: 4-8.
Gin T, Gregory MA, Chan K, Oh TE. Maternal and Fetal Levels of Propofol at Caesarean Section. Anaesth Intens Care 1990; 318: 181-184.
Gin T, Oand;#39;Meara ME, Kan AF, Leung RQW, Tan P, Yau G. Plasma cathecolamines and neonatal condition after induction of anaesthesia with Propofol or Thiopentone at caesarean section. B J Anaesth 1993; 70: 311-316.
Gregory MA, Gin T, Yau G, Leung RK, Chan K, TE Oh. Propofol infusion anaesthesia for Caesarean section. Can J Anaesth 1990; 37: 514-520.
Houthoff Khemlani K, Weibel S, Kranke P, Schreiber JU. Hypnotic agents for induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesthesia 2018; 48: 73-80.
Madkour NM, Ibrahim SA, Ezz GF. General versus spinal anesthesia during elective cesarean section in term low-risk pregnancy as regards maternal and neonatal outcomes: a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care 2019; 6: 119-124.
Mamidi DM, Mahjoobifard M, Panahipoor A, Dadras MA. Comparing Propofol with Sodium Thiopental on Neonatal Apgar Score after Elective Cesarean Section. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 2011; 15: 21-24.
Martand;iacute;nez Segura RT. Cand;oacute;mo hacer anestesia total intravenosa en obstetricia? Rev Mex Anestesiol 2014; 37: 275-283.
Mekonen S, Eshete A, Desta K, Molla Y. Maternal and Neonatal outcomes in mothers who undergo caesarean section under General and spinal Anesthesia in Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Addis Ababa. Adv Tech Biol Med 2015; 3: 1-5.
Miranda AF, Kyi W, Sivalingam N. Propofol and Methohexitone for Elective Caesarean ~ A Comparative Study. Med J Malaysia 1992; 47: 280-286.
Montandrau O, Espitalier F, Bouyou J, Laffon M, Remand;eacute;rand F. Thiopental versus propofol on the outcome of the newborn after caesarean section: An impact study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2019; 38: 631-635.
Moore J, Bill KM, Flynn RJ, McKeating KT, Howard PJ. A comparison between propofol and thiopentone as induction agents in obstetric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 753-757.
Nand;aacute;poles Mand;eacute;ndez D and Couto Nand;uacute;and;ntilde;ez D. Anand;aacute;lisis de la cesand;aacute;rea como fuente de costo. Rev Cub Obstet Ginecol 2017; 21: 1008- 1017.
Sahraei R, Ghanei M, Radmehr M, Jahromi AS. The effect of propofol and thiopental on neonate Apgar in induction of cesarean section Anesthesia: A comparative study. Life Sci J 2014; 11: 93-95.
Salud Perinatal. El nacimiento por cesand;aacute;rea hoy. Boletand;iacute;n del Centro Latinoamericano de Perinatologand;iacute;a y Desarrollo Humano (CLAP). 1989; 3(9).
Santos AC, Epstein JN, Chaudhuri K. Obstetric anesthesia. Clinical anesthesiology guide. New York : Editorial Mc Graw Hill Education 2015; p. 589-637.
Sarduy Nand;aacute;poles MR, Molina Peand;ntilde;ate LL, Tapia Llody G, Medina Arencibia C, Chiong Hernand;aacute;ndez D. La cesand;aacute;rea como la mand;aacute;s antigua de las operaciones obstand;eacute;tricas. Rev Cuba Obstet Ginecol 2018; 44: 1-18.
Siles Levy OY. Indicaciones y complicaciones inmediatas de cesand;aacute;reas realizadas a pacientes que acuden al servicio de Ginecoobstetricia del Hospital Nuevo Amanecer del municipio de Bilwi durante el perand;iacute;odo de Febrero a Julio del aand;ntilde;o 2016. Managua: Faculta de Ciencias Mand;eacute;dicas de la Universidad Nacional Autand;oacute;noma de Nicaragua; 2018.
Soens M, Tsen LC. Fetal physiology. En: Chestnut DH, Wong CA, Tsen LC, Ngan Kee WD, Beilin Y, Mhyre JM, et al. Obstetric anesthesia. Principles and Practice. 6ta ed. Philadelphia: editorial Elsevier. 2020; p: 77-95.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rand;uuml;cker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 342: 1-8.
Tolyat M, Zanguoie M, Zanguoie R. Comparative study of the effect of general anesthesia with Propofol, Sodium Thiopental and the combination of Propofol-Thiopental on Apgar score of newborn babies in the cesarean delivery. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research 2016; 7: 979-983.
Tumukunde J, Lomangisi DD, Davidson O, Kintu A, Joseph E, Kwizera A. Effects of propofol versus thiopental on Apgar scores in newborns and peri-operative outcomes of women undergoing emergency cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2015; 15: 63-69.
Valtonen M, Kanto J, Rosenberg P. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 758-762.
Vanegas Saavedra A. Anestesia intavenosa 3era ed. Colombia: Editorial Panamaericana 2014; p: 182-263.
Vuyk J, Sitsen E, Reekers M. Intravenous anesthesia. En: Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener- Kronish JP, Young WL. Miller´s Anesthesia. 9th ed; Philadephia: Editorial Elsevier 2020; p: 638-679.
Yau G, Gin T, Ewart MC, Kotur CF, Leung RKW, Oh TE. Propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia at Caesarean section. Anaesthesia 1991; 46: 20-23.
links:
GHO | By category | Health service coverage - Data by WHO region. WHO. World Health Organization; Disponible en: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.1610?lang=en
M19010N01 PROPOFOL 1%.pdf. 2019. Disponible en: https://www.cecmed.cu/sites/default/files/adjuntos/rcp/M19010N01%20%20PROPOFOL%201%2 pdf
WHO_RHR_15.02_spa.pdf [citado 2 de septiembre de 2020]. Disponible en: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/161444/WHO_RHR_15.02_spa.pdf;jsessionid=584A3455250A89184B06D33D66D6C4C3?sequence=1</References>
</References>
</Journal>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>