Measurement of urinary neopterin in normal pregnant and non-pregnant women and in women with benign and malignant genital tract neoplasms

A. Bichler,D. Fuchs,A. Hausen,H. Hetzel,Gilbert Reibnegger,H. Wachter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02114788

Archives of Gynecology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Effect of Remimazolam Supplementation on Propofol Requirements During Hysteroscopy: A Double-Blind, Dose-Response Study.

Yan-Hong Zhou,Shu-Xi Li,Lin Li,Chun-Mei Deng,Jian-Jun Shen,Dong-Xin Wang,Xin-Zhong Chen,Li-Li Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006921

2024-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Propofol is commonly used for procedural sedation but may increase side effects in a dose-dependent manner. Remimazolam, an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, has been approved for procedural sedation but may delay awakening. This study tested the hypothesis that remimazolam as a supplement reduces effect-site propofol concentration (Ceprop) required to suppress response to cervical dilation in patients undergoing hysteroscopy.METHODS:One hundred and fifty patients who were scheduled for hysteroscopy were randomized to receive 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2 mg·kg-1 intravenous remimazolam, followed by a bolus of sufentanil 0.15 μg⋅kg-1, and a target-controlled propofol infusion. The initial target Ceprop was 3.5 μg·mL-1 and was increased or decreased in subsequent patients by steps of 0.5 μg·mL-1 according to whether there was loss of response to cervical dilation in the previous patient. We used up-down sequential analysis to determine values of Ceprop that suppressed response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC50).RESULTS:The EC50 of propofol for suppressing response to cervical dilation was lower in patients given 0.1 mg·kg-1 (2.08 [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.88-2.28] μg·mL-1), 0.15 mg⋅kg-1 (1.83 [1.56-2.10] μg·mL-1), and 0.2 mg⋅kg-1 (1.43 [1.27-1.58] μg·mL-1) remimazolam than those given 0 mg⋅kg-1 (3.67 [3.49-3.86] μg·mL-1) or 0.05 mg⋅kg-1 (3.47 [3.28-3.67] μg·mL-1) remimazolam (all were P < .005). Remimazolam at doses of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 mg·kg-1 decreased EC50 of propofol by 43.3% (95% CI, 41.3%-45.5%), 50.3% (48.0%-52.8%), and 61.2% (58.7%-63.8%), respectively, from baseline (remimazolam 0 mg⋅kg-1). Propofol consumption was lower in patients given 0.1 mg⋅kg-1 (4.15 [3.51-5.44] mg·kg-1), 0.15 mg⋅kg-1 (3.54 [3.16-4.46] mg·kg-1), and 0.2 mg⋅kg-1 (2.74 [1.73-4.01] mg·kg-1) remimazolam than those given 0 mg⋅kg-1 (6.09 [4.99-7.35] mg·kg-1) remimazolam (all were P < .005). Time to anesthesia emergence did not differ significantly among the 5 groups.CONCLUSIONS:For women undergoing hysteroscopic procedures, remimazolam at doses from 0.1 to 0.2 mg·kg-1 reduced the EC50 of propofol inhibiting response to cervical dilation and the total propofol requirement. Whether the combination could improve perioperative outcomes deserves further investigation.
Remimazolam: A Review in Procedural Sedation

Arnold Lee,Matt Shirley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-021-01544-8

Drugs

Abstract:Remimazolam (Byfavo™) is a benzodiazepine sedative that is indicated for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults. Remimazolam was efficacious in three phase III trials in patients requiring endoscopies. Significantly higher procedure success rates (composite of the completion of the procedure, top-up doses of study drug within predefined limits and no requirement for rescue therapy) were observed with remimazolam than with placebo, with the majority of placebo recipients requiring rescue midazolam. Furthermore, remimazolam significantly reduced times to onset of sedation and recovery in comparison with placebo (plus rescue). Remimazolam is generally well tolerated, with hypotension and hypertension the most common adverse drug reactions. Higher doses of concomitant fentanyl with remimazolam may increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions and deep sedation events. However, no correlation was observed between depth of sedation and vital signs. In summary, remimazolam is a useful option for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation. Although pharmacoeconomic analyses for remimazolam are not yet available, the rapid induction of sedation and short recovery times with remimazolam may be beneficial in improving patient throughput in clinics.
Remimazolam and Its Place in the Current Landscape of Procedural Sedation and General Anesthesia

Matthew Brohan,Janette Brohan,Basavana Goudra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154362

IF: 3.9

2024-07-27

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Remimazolam was derived from its parent compound by adding an ester linkage into its structure so that the drug becomes a substrate for ester metabolism. As a result, it undergoes organ-independent ester hydrolysis, although the clinical benefits in terms of shorter recovery are not uniformly observed in clinical practice. Remimazolam is mainly tested in procedural sedation. In comparison to propofol, the current gold standard for procedural sedation, its proposed attractiveness is shorter wake-up times and a clear-headed recovery. Its clear advantages over propofol are better hemodynamic stability, lack of pain on injection and availability of a reversal agent in the form of flumazenil. Data on patient and proceduralist satisfaction are lacking. Remimazolam is also used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in Japan (where it is approved for this purpose). In this scenario, it is not clear if it can achieve the same degree of lack of recall as propofol. The use of remimazolam in obstetrics, pediatrics and high-risk populations is an emerging area.

medicine, general & internal
Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Wania Ahmer,Sahar Imtiaz,Daniyal Muhammad Alam,Khadija Ahmed,Barka Sajid,Juvairia Yousuf,Sunny Asnani,Muhammad Ahmed Ali Fahim,Rahmeen Ali,Marium Mansoor,Muhammad Talha Safdar,Muhammad Umair Anjum,Muhammad Hasanain,Muhammad Omar Larik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03624-6

2024-01-24

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xianlin Zhu,Hongbai Wang,Su Yuan,Yinan Li,Yuan Jia,Zhe Zhang,Fuxia Yan,Zaiping Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.655042

IF: 3.9

2021-07-26

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I 2 = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I 2 = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I 2 = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol. Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

medicine, general & internal
Remimazolam versus traditional sedatives for procedural sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes

Yun Tang,Xiaobo Yang,Yuan Yu,Huaqing Shu,Jiqian Xu,Ruiting Li,Xiaojing Zou,Shiying Yuan,You Shang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16631-9

Abstract:Introduction: Remimazolam is a novel and ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine currently approved for procedural sedation and induction of general anaesthesia, with a possible indication for ICU sedation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and traditional sedatives for patients undergoing procedural sedation. Evidence acquisition: We systematically searched Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials of procedural sedation performed with remimazolam versus traditional sedatives. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference. Evidence synthesis: Eleven studies of 2356 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that remimazolam was associated with a higher procedure success rate (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.52, P=0.006; I2=99%), a shorter duration of recovery after procedure (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -0.98, -0.14, P=0.009; I2=89%), and an earlier patient discharge after procedure (SMD: -0.37, 95% CI: -0.49, -0.25, P<0.00001; I2=0%) in comparison with traditional sedatives. There were no statistically significant differences in onset time, procedure time, and cognitive recovery between remimazolam and traditional sedatives groups. Remimazolam significantly decreased the rate of bradycardia (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.97, P=0.04; I2=0%), hypotension (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.80, P=0.001; I2=80%), and respiratory depression/hypoxia (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.83, P=0.01; I2=61%) compared to traditional sedatives. Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for procedural sedation on account of a higher success procedure rate, a faster recovery, a shorter discharge time, and a superior safety profile in comparison with traditional sedatives. Larger sample-sized and well-designed clinical trials are needed to verify our finding.
Determination of the 50% and 95% Effective Dose of Remimazolam Combined with Propofol for Intravenous Sedation During Day-Surgery Hysteroscopy

Hua Tan,Ai-Fei Lou,Jian-Er Wu,Xin-Zhong Chen,Xiao-Wei Qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S406514

2023-01-01

Abstract:Purpose: Remimazolam has demonstrated the potential as a valuable medication for procedural sedation. However, there were some shortcomings for higher doses of remimazolam during hysteroscopy in spite of less frequent adverse events. The aim of this study was to find the 50% and 95% effective dose (ED50 and ED95) of remimazolam when combined with propofol for intravenous sedation during day-surgery hysteroscopy.Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned evenly (20 per group) to one of five different dosage of remimazolam: group A (0.05mg/kg), group B (0.075mg/kg), group C (0.1mg/kg), group D (0.125mg/kg) or group E (0.15mg/kg). Intravenous injection of sufentanil 0.1 & mu;g/kg was administered before sedative medication. Intravenous anesthesia was commenced with remima-zolam. Subsequently, propofol was administered at 1mg/kg and maintained at 6mg/kg/h. Success was defined when the patient did not move during cervical dilation, had sufficient sedation as judged by SE <60 and no requirement for rescue doses. The success rate, induce and average dosage of propofol, the induction time, total surgery time, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded. Estimate of ED50 and ED95 with 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed by probit regression.Results: The mean (95% CI) values for ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam in patients were 0.09 (0.08-0.11) mg/kg and 0.21 (0.16- 0.35) mg/kg, respectively. There was no difference in the induction time, total surgery time, and recovery time among groups. No serious adverse events occurred in all patients.Conclusion: The dose-response effects of remimazolam were evaluated for intravenous sedation during hysteroscopy. A combination of remimazolam and propofol was recommended to produce stabler sedation, reduce the total dosage and have less effect on cardiovascular and respiratory depression.
Comparison of 95% Effective Dose of Remimazolam Besylate and Propofol for Gastroscopy Sedation on Older Patients: A Single‐centre Randomized Controlled Trial

Enci Ye,Keyang Wu,Hui Ye,Wenyuan Zhang,Lihua Chu,Kai Zhang,Guohao Xie,Yue Jin,Xiangming Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15839

2023-01-01

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:Aim: Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events during procedural sedation. Remimazolam is safe and effective in adults’ gastroscopy sedation. The ideal dose and availability for elderly patients are not well known. We aim to investigate its 95% effective dose (ED95) for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy, and to assess its safety and efficacy, with propofol as the comparison. Methods: The trial consists of two parts, patients who are over 65 and scheduled for elective outpatient painless gastroscopy were enrolled. In the first part, Dixon’s up-and-down methodology was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol for inhibiting body movement during gastroscopic insertion, in combination with 0.2μg/kg remifentanil. In the second part, patients in each group received 0.2μg/kg remifentanil and the ED95 dose of the study drug for sedation induction, adding supplemental doses to maintain sedation depth when necessary. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome was the recovery time. Results: The ED95 of remimazolam and propofol induction dose were 0.204mg/kg [95% CI (0.175–0.390) mg/kg] and 1.994 mg/kg [95% CI (1. 739–5.955) mg/kg] respectively in gastroscopy. Adverse events were reported in 40.6% of patients in the remimazolam group and 83.1% in the propofol group (p<0.001), whereas the remimazolam group showed a higher incidence of hiccup(p=0.017). A shorter time to awakening (p<0.05) in the remimazolam group was observed. Conclusion: For elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy, the ED95 dose of remimazolam is a safer alternative than propofol when inducing the same sedation depth.
Abdominal aortic aneurysm: pretherapy assessment with dual-slice helical CT angiography.

Salah Dine Qanadli,Benoît Mesurolle,M. Coggia,Olivier Barré,Sumio Fukui,Olivier A. Goeau-Brissonniére,Sophie Chagnon,Pascal Lacombe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.174.1.1740181

Abstract:OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate dual-slice helical CT in the pretherapy assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Dual-slice helical CT angiography was performed in 47 consecutive patients (mean age, 59 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysm to determine whether we could then evaluate the extent of aneurysm and see associated renal, celiac, mesenteric, and iliofemoral artery disease. Results were compared with those of digital subtraction angiography (n = 47) and surgery (n = 37). RESULTS The proximal and distal extents of abdominal aortic aneurysm correlated well with surgical findings. Dual-slice helical CT showed all main (n = 102) and accessory (n = 13) renal arteries with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 100% for revealing associated renal artery stenosis exceeding 50%. Sensitivity and specificity of dual-slice helical CT for revealing stenosis exceeding 75% in celiac and superior mesenteric arteries were both 100%. Three of four iliofemoral artery stenoses and two occlusions of the common iliac artery were revealed by dual-slice helical CT. CONCLUSION Helical CT angiography with dual-slice scanning is a useful and minimally invasive technique that can provide with high accuracy all the necessary information for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm.
The Pharmaceutical Future of Remimazolam as Compared to Propofol and Midazolam: A Literature Review

Hannah Meyer,Sean McCann,Joel Farmer

Abstract:Introduction: Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine with a predictable and quick recovery that was FDA approved in 2020. As a relatively new medication, it is not as mainstream as other sedatives such as propofol or midazolam. This research aims to highlight the differences, benefits, and drawbacks of remimazolam in comparison to other short-term sedatives in order to bring greater awareness, and to consolidate the current knowledge of the effects of remimazolam. Methods: The PubMed database was used to search for current relevant research to review. The search terms used were: "remimazolam", "midazolam", "propofol", and procedural sedation. The search also used qualifiers using only publications in English and published within the last five years. This query yielded 26 articles which were reviewed for content and relevance. Results: Sixteen of the reviewed studies resulted in common themes suggesting remimazolam to be an effective alternative for procedural sedation with fewer adverse effects. Primarily, remimazolam is observed to have decreased procedural hypotension, bradycardia, and injection site pain. With no studies demonstrating an increased frequency of bradycardia, remimazolam is theorized to be superior to propofol in respect to sedation-associated bradycardia. One specific study notes a 14% decrease in frequency of bradycardia compared to propofol. Further benefits of remimazolam over propofol include the availability of an effective and reliable antidote, flumazenil. Conclusion: In being that remimazolam has primarily been used and studied in short-term sedation, we can only confidently conclude remimazolam's safety in these settings. There is little research being done in the way of ICU sedation or general anesthesia, but with the relatively similar, or decreased rates of adverse events with remimazolam, we suspect an increase in clinical research of remimazolam in these settings. With continued robust research, remimazolam could become more widely accepted as a safe alternative to current sedatives.
Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Junbao Zhang,Zhuoma Cairen,Liwen Shi,Shasha Pang,Yingjie Shao,Yun Wang,Zhihong Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16817-3

Abstract:Introduction: The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam compared with propofol when used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia. Evidence acquisition: Data sources were PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicaTrials.gov, searched up to March 21, 2022. RCTs comparing remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing procedural sedation or general anesthesia were searched. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference, 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model. The trial sequential analysis was used for sensitivity analysis. Evidence synthesis: Ten studies with 1813 patients were included. Compared with propofol, remimazolam had lower success rate of sedation/general anesthesia (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.03; P=0.004; N.=1402). However, remimazolam had lower incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, and injection pain than propofol. No difference in incidence of nausea and vomiting, time to awake and to discharge was found. Subgroup studies showed that remimazolam had lower success rate than propofol when used for procedural sedation, not general anesthesia. The trial sequential analysis adjusted confidence interval was 1.01 to 1.04 for success rate. Conclusions: Remimazolam could be alternatively used in procedural sedation and general anesthesia. Additional research is needed to develop higher quality evidence on the use of remimazolam, especially in general anesthesia.
The rate and pattern of nucleotide substitution in Drosophila mitochondrial DNA.

K. Tamura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.MOLBEV.A040763

IF: 10.7

1992-09-01

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract:The nucleotide sequences of a segment of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have been determined for nine species or subspecies of the subgenus Drosophila of the genus Drosophila. This segment contains two complete protein-coding genes (i.e., NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1 and cytochrome b) and a transfer RNA gene (tRNA(ser)). The G+C content at third-codon positions for the two protein-coding genes was 1.5 times higher than that in the D. melanogaster species group, which belongs to the subgenus Sophophora. However, there was a substantial difference between the nucleotide frequencies of G and C. The number of nucleotide substitutions per silent site was more than three times higher than that for nuclear DNA, although it was only 60% of that for mammalian mtDNA. Both parametric and nonparametric analyses revealed a strong transition-transversion bias in nucleotide substitution, as was observed in mammalian mtDNA. Moreover, the rate of substitution of A and T for G and C is higher than that for the opposite direction. This bias seems to be responsible for the extremely A+T-rich base composition of Drosophila mtDNA. It is also noted that the rate of transitional change between A and G is higher than that between T and C.
Dupuytren's disease: anatomy, pathology, presentation, and treatment.

G. Rayan

Abstract:The disorder called Dupuytren's disease has been recognized for approximately 400 years. Its presentation, although seemingly rather constant, is actually extremely variable, depending on which structures are involved. A thorough knowledge of palmar fascial anatomy is essential to the understanding of Dupuytren's disease.
Opioid enhancement of evoked [Met5]enkephalin release requires activation of cholinergic receptors: possible involvement of intracellular calcium.

H. Xu,A. Gintzler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.89.5.1978

1992-03-01

Abstract:Previous work from this laboratory has shown that the electrically evoked release of enkephalin from the guinea pig myenteric plexus is regulated by an opiate receptor-mediated, concentration-dependent mechanism. Low concentrations (nanomolar) of opioids enhance release, whereas higher concentrations (10-100 nM) inhibit release. Each opioid effect is mediated by a different guanine nucleotide-binding protein. We now demonstrate that activation of cholinergic receptors in the myenteric plexus is a prerequisite for opioid excitatory effects, but not inhibitory effects, on enkephalin release. Pretreatment with the muscarinic cholinergic receptor antagonist atropine abolishes the opioid facilitation of stimulated enkephalin release but does not alter the inhibition of release that is observed with higher concentrations of opioid agonist. Exposure to the calcium ionophore A23187 overcomes the abolishment of opioid enhancement of enkephalin release produced by cholinergic receptor blockade. In tissue treated with both atropine and A23187, the magnitude of the opioid enhancement of release is indistinguishable from that observed in untreated preparations. This suggests that the lack of stimulation-induced generation of elevated cytosolic calcium is responsible for the abolishment of facilitory opioid effects when cholinergic receptors are blocked. The known coupling of muscarinic receptors to phospholipase C activation and the generation of inositol trisphosphate (which elevates cytosolic calcium) could suggest that this second messenger is critical for the manifestation of opioid facilitation of enkephalin release.
Characterization of the constitutive and wound-inducible monoterpene cyclases of grand fir (Abies grandis).

M. Gijzen,E. Lewinsohn,R. Croteau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(91)90471-T

IF: 4.114

1991-08-15

Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics

Abstract:
Preliminary Experience With Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation and as an Adjunct to General Anesthesia During Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Procedures

Holly Gillis,Christopher McKee,Kristin Chenault,Marco Corridore,Joseph D Tobias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1595

Abstract:Background: Remimazolam is a benzodiazepine which, like midazolam, has sedative, anxiolytic, and amnestic properties. Ester metabolism results in a half-life of 5 - 10 min, a limited context sensitive half-life, and rapid recovery when the infusion is discontinued. Methods: Following the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received remimazolam in the cardiac catheterization, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electrophysiology suites. The primary objective was to assess efficacy and safety. The secondary objective was to describe bolus and infusion dosing of remimazolam and the need for adjunctive agents to optimize procedural sedation conditions. Results: The study cohort included 26 patients with a median age of 18 years and a total of 33 anesthetic encounters. The most common procedures were endomyocardial biopsy or isolated hemodynamic assessment (right or left heart catheterization). Remimazolam was the primary agent for sedation in 82% of the procedures. The majority of cases (25 encounters, 76%) included a bolus dose of remimazolam prior to the start of an infusion. For those patients who received a starting bolus dose, dosing typically ranged between 30 and 110 µg/kg. Continuous infusion rates of remimazolam varied from 5 to 20 µg/kg/min. No adverse hemodynamic or respiratory effects were noted. Midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine were the most frequently used adjunctive agents. One patient required transition to general anesthesia due to the need for a surgical intervention based on the findings of the cardiac catheterization. All other patients were effectively sedated. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience demonstrates that remimazolam effectively provided sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. Future studies are needed to further define dosing parameters for both bolus dosing and continuous infusion as well as to compare remimazolam to other commonly used for procedural sedation in patients with congenital and acquired heart disease.
Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yu Chang,Yun-Ting Huang,Kuan-Yu Chi,Yen-Ta Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15495

IF: 3.061

2023-06-12

PeerJ

Abstract:Background: To improve patient tolerability and satisfaction as well as minimize complications, procedural sedation has been widely used. Propofol is the most widely used agent for induction of anesthesia and sedation by anesthesiologists. With a different mechanism compared to propofol, remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA-A receptor agonist. It is an ester-based benzodiazepine. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for procedure sedation. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy or safety of remimazolam versus propofol. Meta-analysis were conducted using RStudio with "metafor" package with random-effects model. Results: A total of twelve RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that patients with remimazolam for procedural sedation had lower risk of bradycardia (OR 0.28, 95% CI [0.14-0.57]), hypotension (OR 0.26, 95% CI [0.22-0.32]), and respiratory depression (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.14-0.36]). There was no difference in the risk of developing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.15-2.79]) and dizziness (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.53-1.61]) between the remimazolam and propofol groups. Using remimazolam for procedural sedation is significantly associated with less injection pain compared to propofol (OR 0.06, 95% CI [0.03-0.13]). Regarding the sedation efficacy, there was no difference in sedation success rate or time to loss of consciousness, recover and discharge between the remimazolam and the propofol groups. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, patients receiving procedural sedation with remimazolam had lower risk of bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression and injection pain compared with propofol. On the other hand, there was no difference in sedation success rate, risk of PONV, dizziness, time to LOC, recovery and discharge between these two sedatives. Prospero registration number: CRD42022362950.
Safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol during EUS: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Jung Wan Choe,Moon Jae Chung,Se Woo Park,Dongwook Oh,Sung Yong Han,Min Jae Yang,Eui Joo Kim,Jae Hee Cho,Kyong Joo Lee,Sung Ill Jang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.04.001

Abstract:Background and aims: Propofol, a widely used sedative in GI endoscopic procedures, is associated with cardiorespiratory suppression. Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine sedative with rapid onset and minimal cardiorespiratory depression. This study compared the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol during EUS procedures. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled study was conducted between October 2022 and March 2023 in patients who underwent EUS procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remimazolam or propofol as a sedative agent. The primary endpoint was cardiorespiratory adverse events (AEs) during the procedure, including desaturation, respiratory depression, hypotension, and tachycardia. Secondary endpoints were the time to achieve sedation, recovery time, quality of sedation, pain at the injection site, and satisfaction of both endoscopists and patients. Results: Four hundred patients enrolled in the study: 200 received remimazolam (10.8 ± 7.7 mg) and 200 received propofol (88.0 ± 49.1 mg). For cardiorespiratory AEs, the remimazolam group experienced fewer occurrences than the propofol group (8.5% vs 16%, P = .022). A nonsignificant trend was found toward less oxygen desaturation (1.0% vs 3.5%, P = .09), respiratory depression (.5% vs 1.5%, P = .62), hypotension (2.5% vs 5.5%, P = .12), and tachycardia (4.5% vs 5.5%, P = .68) with remimazolam than with propofol. Remimazolam showed a shorter induction time than propofol while maintaining comparable awakening and recovery times. Injection site pain was significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group. The remimazolam group demonstrated a significantly higher quality of sedation and satisfaction scores than the propofol group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and patients. Conclusions: Remimazolam was superior to propofol in terms of safety and efficacy during EUS examinations. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0007643.).
A Phase IIa, randomized, double-blind study of remimazolam (CNS 7056) versus midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Keith M Borkett,Dennis S Riff,Howard I Schwartz,Peter J Winkle,Daniel J Pambianco,James P Lees,Karin Wilhelm-Ogunbiyi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000548

Abstract:Background: This exploratory study was the first study of remimazolam in patients to assess the safety and efficacy of different single doses for procedural sedation. Methods: Patients scheduled to undergo a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to receive 1 of 3 doses of remimazolam or midazolam (25 per group) in a double-blind manner. After a single dose of study drug to achieve sedation, patients underwent gastroscopy. We assessed the success of the procedure, sedation levels, recovery from sedation, and safety. Results: A single dose of remimazolam resulted in a successful procedure in 32%, 56%, and 64% of patients in the low (0.10), middle (0.15), and high (0.20 mg/kg) dose groups compared with 44% of patients in the midazolam (0.075 mg/kg) dose group. The onset of sedation was 1.5 to 2.5 minutes in the remimazolam dose groups compared with 5 minutes for midazolam. Because this was a single administration study, sedation could be maintained for as long as necessary to complete the procedure, using rescue midazolam or propofol. Recovery from sedation was rapid for all treatment groups but was influenced by the choice of rescue medication. There were no obvious differences in the safety profiles of remimazolam and midazolam. Conclusions: This exploratory dose-finding study showed that a single administration of remimazolam (0.10-0.20 mg/kg) was capable of inducing rapid sedation with a quick recovery profile in patients undergoing a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The safety profile was favorable and appeared to be similar to that of midazolam, warranting further development of this short-acting compound.
[Thrombopenia in treatment with mesalazine].

P. Seror

2000-09-23

Presse Medicale

Abstract:

Measurement of urinary neopterin in normal pregnant and non-pregnant women and in women with benign and malignant genital tract neoplasms

Effect of Remimazolam Supplementation on Propofol Requirements During Hysteroscopy: A Double-Blind, Dose-Response Study.

Remimazolam: A Review in Procedural Sedation

Remimazolam and Its Place in the Current Landscape of Procedural Sedation and General Anesthesia

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Remimazolam versus traditional sedatives for procedural sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes

Determination of the 50% and 95% Effective Dose of Remimazolam Combined with Propofol for Intravenous Sedation During Day-Surgery Hysteroscopy

Comparison of 95% Effective Dose of Remimazolam Besylate and Propofol for Gastroscopy Sedation on Older Patients: A Single‐centre Randomized Controlled Trial

Abdominal aortic aneurysm: pretherapy assessment with dual-slice helical CT angiography.

The Pharmaceutical Future of Remimazolam as Compared to Propofol and Midazolam: A Literature Review

Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia: a systemic review and meta-analysis

The rate and pattern of nucleotide substitution in Drosophila mitochondrial DNA.

Dupuytren's disease: anatomy, pathology, presentation, and treatment.

Opioid enhancement of evoked [Met5]enkephalin release requires activation of cholinergic receptors: possible involvement of intracellular calcium.

Characterization of the constitutive and wound-inducible monoterpene cyclases of grand fir (Abies grandis).

Preliminary Experience With Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation and as an Adjunct to General Anesthesia During Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Procedures

Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol during EUS: a multicenter randomized controlled study

A Phase IIa, randomized, double-blind study of remimazolam (CNS 7056) versus midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

[Thrombopenia in treatment with mesalazine].