Skip to main content

Comment to: “Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials”: authors’ reply

The Original Article was published on 17 May 2023

The Original Article was published on 12 April 2023

Our meta-analysis of RCTs in critically ill and perioperative patients [1] suggested propofol is associated with a relative mortality increase of 10% highlighting the potential for harm acknowledged since 2001 [2] but which has been relatively forgotten. We have reported multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses which all supported the magnitude (approximately 10%) and direction (against propofol) of the survival effect.

Systematic reviews usually aim to cover all available evidence. Meta-analyses offer the opportunity to demonstrate smaller effects which may not be identified in small- or middle-sized randomized trials. For instance, the mortality benefit of low molecular weight heparins in severe COVID-19 patients was not demonstrable in the initial trials but has been shown in meta-analysis [3]. The issue of variation in follow-up time is frequently encountered in clinical trials. Outside of individual patient meta-analyses which might use time-to-event and regression analyses, mortality is consequently usually dichotomized, assuming the relative effect between intervention and control are constant across the entire observation time [4]. Mortality will almost inevitably increase over time in both groups as Gutierrez et al. pointed out.

In the context of pooling studies with different follow-up times, this leaves two options: (1) pooling only studies with the same mortality time-point, leading to lower sample sizes and precision and therefore reducing one of the main strengths of meta-analyses or (2) pooling all studies irrespective of follow-up time. Specifically, in the field of critical care and perioperative medicine, it has been shown that different mortality time points did not influence pooled point estimates. Limiting analyses to only one time point would, however, decrease precision and generalizability of the findings [5].

We are co-authors on the Shehabi et al. and Schaefer et al. studies and are aware that young patients requiring high-doses of propofol in the ICU or in perioperative settings have a low mortality. As these were not randomized comparisons, we think this is proxy of being healthy and not an indication that propofol was the safest sedation agent.

As proposed by Gutierrez et al., a network meta-analysis of thousands of trials and dozens of comparisons and settings would truly be a monumental feat! Nonetheless, given questions of propofol safety predate this century and millions are exposed annually, it might be better to apply those energies into generating the multicentered pragmatic randomized controlled trials required to truly advance the safety of practice.

Availability of data and materials

Further information on the original manuscript is available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.



Intensive care unit


  1. Kotani Y, Pruna A, Turi S, Borghi G, Lee TC, Zangrillo A, et al. Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care. 2023;27:139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. FDA issues warning on propofol (Diprivan). Can Med Assoc J. 2001;164:1608–1608-a.

  3. Pilia E, Belletti A, Fresilli S, Lee TC, Zangrillo A, Finco G, et al. The effect of heparin full-dose anticoagulation on survival of hospitalized, non-critically Ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of high quality studies. Lung. 2023;201:135–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) [Internet]. Cochrane; 2022.

  5. Roth D, Heidinger B, Havel C, Herkner H. Different mortality time points in critical care trials: current practice and influence on effect estimates in meta-analyses. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e737–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



YK, AP, TCL, DR, and GL wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Landoni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotani, Y., Pruna, A., Lee, T.C. et al. Comment to: “Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials”: authors’ reply. Crit Care 27, 237 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: