[New publication practice from the National Board of Health?].

P. Videbech,P. Damkier

2012-05-14

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.
Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Kyuho Lee,Seung Ho Choi,Sangil Kim,Hae Dong Kim,Hyejin Oh,Seung Hyun Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.24311

Abstract:Background: Preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) is crucial for maternal safety during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. While midazolam is known to prevent IONV, we hypothesized that remimazolam would be superior due to its minimal hemodynamic effects. We compared the effects of the two drugs on IONV. Methods: Parturients scheduled for cesarean section were randomly assigned to receive either midazolam or remimazolam. They received midazolam 2 mg or remimazolam 5 mg, with additional doses administered upon request. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of newly developed IONV during sedation. Other outcomes included overall IONV, rescue antiemetic use, shivering, hemodynamic variables, sedation scale scores, and satisfaction scores. Results: Data from 80 participants were analyzed. Deeper sedation was induced in the remimazolam group (PGroup × Time < 0.001) despite comparable hemodynamic trends between the groups. The incidence of overall IONV was comparable between the two groups (27.5% in the midazolam group vs. 17.5% in the remimazolam group, absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 0.100, 95% CI [-0.082, 0.282], P = 0.284); however, newly developed IONV during sedation was significantly reduced in the remimazolam group (20.0% vs. 5.0%, ARR: 0.150, 95% CI [0.009, 0.291], P = 0.043). The need for rescue antiemetics was also lower in the remimazolam group (15.0% vs. 2.5%, ARR: 0.125, 95% CI [0.004, 0.246], P = 0.048). Conclusion: Remimazolam significantly reduced the incidence and severity of newly developed IONV compared with midazolam, with minimal impact on hemodynamics, making it a useful sedative option for cesarean section.
Comparison between hemodynamic effects of remimazolam and propofol during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bruno M Wegner,Gustavo M Wegner,Luigi W Spagnol,Luis A Costa,Valentine W Spagnol,Daniel F Paiva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18041-8

Abstract:Introduction: The need for safe anesthetic agents with minimal side effects has led to the development of remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine designed to be an alternative to the commonly used drug propofol, which has significant hemodynamic effects. This study aims to compare the hemodynamic effects of remimazolam with propofol during general anesthesia. Evidence acquisition: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PubMed databases on 13/02/2023, following the recommendations of Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA statement. The measure of association used was Risk Ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 95% Prediction intervals (PI). An additional search was conducted on 04/09/2023. A Trial Sequential Analysis and a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evidence table were conducted based on the editor's recommendation. Evidence synthesis: After applying eligibility criteria and removing duplicates, 16 randomized clinical trials comprising 1951 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Significant associations favoring remimazolam over propofol were observed in the following aspects: intraoperative hypotension events (RR=0.47; 95% CI=0.41 to 0.54; 95% PI=0.40 to 0.55); frequency of vasoactive drug administration (RR=0.54; 95% CI=0.46 to 0.64; 95% PI=0.41 to 0.74); intraoperative bradycardia (RR=0.39; 95% CI=0.27 to 0.57; 95% PI=0.26 to 0.66); mean arterial pressure at induction (MD=7.77; 95% CI=6.00 to 9.55; 95% PI=4.39 to 11.15); heart rate at induction (MD=6.40; 95% CI=4.07 to 8.73; 95% PI=0.33 to 12.48); and heart rate at intubation (MD=6.06; 95% CI=2.33 to 9.78; 95% PI=-5.59 to 17.71). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that remimazolam induces fewer cardiorespiratory depressant effects and has a more favorable side effect profile compared to propofol during general anaesthesia.
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.
Effect of remimazolam on intra-operative hypotension: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Ting-Yu He,Rui-Peng Zhong,Wei-Bo Zhong,Gui-Ming Huang,Xiao-Cheng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002057

2024-12-01

Abstract:Background: Hypotension is common during anaesthesia. Increasing number of studies have reported that remimazolam may be associated with lower incidence of intra-operative hypotension compared with other anaesthetics. However, the results remain controversial. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of remimazolam on intra-operative hypotension and its related outcomes (hypoxaemia, bradycardia and time to awake). Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses. Data sources: PubMed, Cocharane and Embase databases were searched to identify eligible RCTs published up to June 2024. Eligibility criteria: RCTs published in English were eligible for inclusion. The study patients were 18 years or older who were administered with remimazolam and other positive control agents in either the pre-operative or intra-operative period. The incidence of intra-operative hypotension was identified in these studies. Results: This study evaluated 34 trials including 4847 individuals. Basing on moderate-certainty evidence, we found that remimazolam administration reduced the incidence of intra-operative hypotension [risk ratio (RR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.41 to 0.57] and bradycardia (16 studies, n = 2869, RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.54). No difference was observed in the incidence of hypoxaemia (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.01) and time to awake (MD = -0.91, 95% CI: -2.42 to 0.60). The remarkable association between remimazolam and hypotension remained robust and significant, regardless of general anaesthesia or procedural sedation ( P < 0.01, I2 = 82%). No significant difference was found between different control drugs ( P = 0.97, I2 = 82%). Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence shows that remimazolam administration to patients undergoing general anaesthesia or procedural sedation decreases the incidence of intra-operative hypotension and bradycardia.
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.
Comparison of propofol vs. remimazolam on emergence profiles after general anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial

Eun Jung Oh,Yoon Joo Chung,Jong-Hwan Lee,Eun Jin Kwon,Eun Ah Choi,Young Keun On,Jeong-Jin Min

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111223

IF: 9.375

2023-11-01

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract:STUDY OBJECTIVE: The emergence profiles in patients undergoing total intravenous anesthesia with either propofol or remimazolam with flumazenil reversal were compared.DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized trial.SETTING: An operating room and a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU).PATIENTS: Adult patients (n = 100) having American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of I-III undergoing general anesthesia were enrolled and randomly assigned to the propofol or the remimazolam group.INTERVENTIONS: The propofol group received target-controlled infusion of propofol, and the remimazolam group received continuous infusion of remimazolam. Continuous infusion of remifentanil was used in both groups. For emergence, flumazenil was used in increments of 0.2 mg in the remimazolam group.MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the time required for the patient to obey verbal commands. The secondary outcomes included the time to bispectral index (BIS) over 80, the time to laryngeal mask airway (LMA) removal, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the PACU, and adverse events throughout the study period.MAIN RESULTS: The time taken to obey verbal commands was significantly longer in the propofol group than the remimazolam group (14 [9, 19]) vs. 5 [3, 7]) minutes, P < 0.001; median difference -9, 95% confidence interval -11 to -6). The times to BIS over 80 and to LMA removal were also significantly longer in the propofol group. In addition, the RASS score upon arrival to the PACU differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.006). Re-sedation in the PACU was observed in 11 (22%) of the patients in the remimazolam group.CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia with flumazenil reversal may be effective in reducing emergence time, but a significant incidence of re-sedation was observed in the PACU. Further studies are needed to determine adequate dose and timing of routine flumazenil use and minimize the risk of re-sedation.

anesthesiology
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.
Are pediatric patients more susceptible to major renal injury from blunt trauma? A comparative study.

Scott L. Brown,J. Elder,J. Spirnak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63071-4

1998-07-01

Abstract:
Remimazolam vs. propofol for general anaesthesia in elderly patients: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Eduardo Maia Pereira,Vitor Ryuiti Moraes,Mariana Gaya da Costa,Tatiana Souza do Nascimento,Eric Slawka,Carlos Galhardo Júnior,Michel Mrf Struys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002042

2024-10-01

Abstract:Background: Elderly patients comprise an increasing proportion of patients undergoing surgery, and they require special attention due to age-related physiological changes. Propofol is the traditional agent for anaesthesia, and recently, remimazolam, a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has emerged as an alternative to propofol in general anaesthesia. Objectives: We aim to compare remimazolam vs . propofol for general anaesthesia in elderly patients regarding hypotension, induction characteristics, haemodynamics and recovery outcomes. Design: Meta-analysis with sensitivity and trial sequential analyses (TSA) to assess inconsistencies. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed using a random effects model. Subgroups and meta-regression according to anaesthesia methods were also performed. Data sources: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 1, 2024. Eligibility criteria: Patients at least 60 years old, comparing remimazolam vs . propofol for general anaesthesia. Results: Eleven RCTs (947 patients) were included. Compared with propofol, remimazolam was associated with lower postinduction and intra-operative hypotension (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.62, P < 0.001) and incidence of bradycardia (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.98, P = 0.04), with a higher heart rate ( P = 0.01). The incidence of injection pain was lower ( P < 0.001), but remimazolam was associated with a longer time to loss of consciousness ( P < 0.001) and a higher bispectral index at loss of consciousness ( P = 0.04). No differences were found for mean arterial pressure, emergence time, extubation time and incidence of emergence agitation. The TSA was consistent and achieved the required information size for hypotension. Conclusions: Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension, bradycardia and injection pain, despite an increase in the time to loss of consciousness. Remimazolam appears to be an effective and well tolerated alternative to propofol in elderly patients undergoing general anaesthesia.
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
Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Lidan Huang,Hong Liu,Xue Zou,Jiawang Ding,Song Tao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02820-1

2024-03-15

Advances in Therapy

Abstract:Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABA Alpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medicine, research & experimental
The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Lin Zhang,Chun Li,Chuncheng Zhao,Yulai You,Jian Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.44

Abstract:Introduction: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Results: Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08). Conclusions: Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam.
Remimazolam - current knowledge on a new intravenous benzodiazepine anesthetic agent

Seong-Hyop Kim,Jörg Fechner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.22297

Abstract:Intravenous anesthetic agents such as midazolam, propofol, and ketamine are routinely used to provide anesthesia and sedation. They have been shown to effectively induce and maintain amnesia, sedation, and hypnosis in various patient groups and clinical settings. However, all anesthetic agents have the potential to cause unwanted side effects such as hemodynamic instability, respiratory depression, or slow recovery due to prolonged post-procedural sedation. Remimazolam, a recently approved benzodiazepine for general anesthesia and procedural sedation in Korea, has been successfully used for these purposes. To date, inconclusive knowledge has been obtained regarding the use of remimazolam in different patient populations and under various surgical conditions. With respect to the specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of remimazolam, the use of remimazolam is expected to increase providing safe general anesthesia and sedation. This review aims to provide an overview of the basic and clinical pharmacology of remimazolam and to compare it with midazolam and propofol.
Safety and efficacy comparison of remimazolam and propofol for intravenous anesthesia during gastroenteroscopic surgery of older patients: A meta-analysis

Fang-Zhuo Li,Cheng Zhao,Yi-Xun Tang,Ji-Tong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i7.1272

2024-03-06

World Journal of Clinical Cases

Abstract:BACKGROUND Remimazolam is characterized by rapid action and inactive metabolites. It is used as the general anesthetic for many clinical surgeries. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate whether remimazolam is superior to propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older patients. AIM To compare the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol during gastroenteroscopy in older adults. METHODS The PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases were queried for the relevant key words "remimazolam,” "and propofol,” "and gastrointestinal endoscopy or gastroscopy.” The search scope was "Title and Abstract,” and the search was limited to human studies and publications in English. Seven studies wherein remimazolam and propofol were compared were included for the meta-analysis. RESULTS We selected seven randomized controlled trials involving 1445 cases for the analysis. Remimazolam reduced the hypotension (relative risk, RR = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.29-0.66, P = 0.000), respiratory depression (RR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.30-0.70, P = 0.000), injection pain (RR = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.05-0.25, P = 0.000), bradycardia (RR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.24-0.58, P = 0.000), and time to discharge [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.58, 95%CI: -0.97 to -0.18, P = 0.005], compared to those after propofol administration. No obvious differences were observed for postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.97-1.24, P = 0.151), dizziness (RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.43-1.36, P = 0.361), successful sedation rate (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.93-1.00, P = 0.083), or the time to become fully alert (WMD = 0.00, 95%CI: -1.08-1.08, P = 0.998). CONCLUSION Remimazolam appears to be safer than propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older adults. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

medicine, general & internal
Safety and efficacy of remimazolam for general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Keum Young So,Jihwan Park,Sang Hun Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1265860

IF: 3.9

2023-11-02

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Introduction There is insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in elderly patients. Therefore, this study evaluated the differences in the anesthesia characteristics and perioperative hemodynamic profiles of elderly patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam or propofol. Methods Eighty-four patients aged >65 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I–III were randomly assigned to Group R (receiving remimazolam, n = 42) or Group P (receiving propofol, n = 42). In Group R, remimazolam was initiated at a rate of 6 mg/kg/h until loss of consciousness (LOC) was achieved and maintained at 1 mg/kg/h subsequently. In Group P, 1.0–1.5 mg/kg of propofol was injected for 1 min and maintained at 100 μg/kg/min subsequently. The maintenance infusion rate was adjusted to maintain an appropriate depth of anesthesia until the end of the surgery. The primary outcome was the time to LOC. The depth of anesthesia scores and hemodynamic profiles were recorded perioperatively. Results The time to LOC was significantly longer in Group R (120 s) than in Group P (60 s) ( p < 0.001). The time to eye-opening (Group R, 10 min; Group P, 10 min; p = 0.056), the incidence of maintenance of hemodynamic changes within 20% of the peri-anesthetic values, and treatments for hemodynamic instability did not differ significantly between the groups. The depth of anesthesia scores did not differ significantly between the groups; however, the scores were higher in Group R than those in Group P before endotracheal intubation. The hemodynamic parameters did not differ significantly at any time point. The time to extubation was longer in Group R (12 min) than that in Group P (10 min) ( p = 0.007). Similarly, the time to discharge from the operating room was significantly longer in Group R (15 min) compared to Group P (12 min) ( p = 0.018). Conclusion Remimazolam does not exhibit a comparable effect to propofol in terms of anesthesia induction and recovery. However, it demonstrates a similar effect to propofol regarding intraoperative anesthesia depth and hemodynamic profile in elderly patients undergoing remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia.

medicine, general & internal
Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

J. Fechner,K. El‐Boghdadly,D. R. Spahn,J. Motsch,M. M. R. F. Struys,O. Duranteau,M. T. Ganter,T. Richter,M. W. Hollmann,R. Rossaint,S. Bercker,S. Rex,B. Drexler,F. Schippers,A. Morley,H. Ihmsen,E. Kochs,the Surgery Under Remimazolam ‐ Total IntraVenous Anaesthesia Trial Group,the Surgery Under Remimazolam ‐ Total IntraVenous Anaesthesia (SURE‐TIVA) Trial Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16205

IF: 12.893

2024-01-16

Anaesthesia

Abstract:Summary Remimazolam, a short‐acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non‐inferiority margin of ‐10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non‐inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) ‐6.28% (‐8.89–infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p

anesthesiology
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.
A Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Jiwon Lee,Dong Woo Han,Young Song,Jongyun Lee,Soyoung Jeon,Myoung Hwa Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14040382

IF: 3.5083

2024-04-03

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Abstract:This study compared the overall postoperative recovery of patients who underwent total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam or propofol, using the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire (QoR-15). Seventy-two patients who underwent spine surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) were randomly categorized into the remimazolam group (group R) or propofol group (group P). On the first postoperative day, the QoR-15 scores for groups P and R were 114 and 112, respectively, indicating no significant difference (p = 0.691). Similarly, group–time interaction effects on QoR-15 scores were not significantly different. In the post-anesthesia care unit, the pain intensity at rest was notably higher in group P than in group R (3.0 [0.0] vs. 2.8 [0.5], respectively, p = 0.009). Although the intraoperative consumption of remifentanil was higher in group R (1452.4 μg vs. 2066.8 μg, respectively, p < 0.001), the intraoperative use of vasopressors was lower in group R (1705.6 μg vs. 286.1 μg, respectively, p < 0.001) compared to group P. Group R exhibited significantly lower variability in mean blood pressure over time compared to group P. Remimazolam was viewed as a promising intravenous agent for general anesthesia, showing potential to replace propofol in spine surgery with IONM, considering both recovery quality and intraoperative hemodynamic stability.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Remimazolam-remifentanil causes less postoperative nausea and vomiting than remimazolam-alfentanil during hysteroscopy: a single-centre randomized controlled trial

Xiaoqiang Zhang,Shuang Li,Jing Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02164-3

2023-06-12

Abstract:Background: Although the operation time of hysteroscopy is short, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is high. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in hysteroscopy when remimazolam is combined with remifentanil or alfentanil. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Patients undergoing hysteroscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to either the remimazolam-remifentanil (Group RR) or the remimazolam-alfentanil group (Group RA). All patients in the two groups were started with an induction dose of remimazolam besylate 0.2 mg/kg and then maintained with a dosage of 1.0 mg/kg/h. After induction with remimazolam besylate, in Group RR, remifentanil was infused using a target-controlled infusion system with a target concentration of 1.5 ng/ml and titrated throughout the procedure. In Group RA, infusion of alfentanil was started with an initial bolus dose of 20 µg/kg over 30 s and then maintained at an initial rate of 0.16 µg/kg/min. The primary observation outcome was the incidence rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The secondary observation outcomes were the time to awakening, the length of stay in the PACU, the total remimazolam dose and adverse effects, such as low SpO2, bradycardia, hypotension and body movement. Results: A total of 204 patients were successfully included in this study. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in Group RR (2/102, 2.0%) was significantly lower than that in Group RA (12/102, 11.8%) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events, such as low SpO2, bradycardia, hypotension and body movement, between Groups RR and RA (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Remimazolam-remifentanil causes less postoperative nausea and vomiting than remimazolam-alfentanil in hysteroscopy. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100044177. Full date of the first registration: 12/03/2021.

[New publication practice from the National Board of Health?].

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

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Comparison between hemodynamic effects of remimazolam and propofol during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Effect of remimazolam on intra-operative hypotension: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

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

Comparison of propofol vs. remimazolam on emergence profiles after general anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial

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

Are pediatric patients more susceptible to major renal injury from blunt trauma? A comparative study.

Remimazolam vs. propofol for general anaesthesia in elderly patients: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

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

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis

The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Remimazolam - current knowledge on a new intravenous benzodiazepine anesthetic agent

Safety and efficacy comparison of remimazolam and propofol for intravenous anesthesia during gastroenteroscopic surgery of older patients: A meta-analysis

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam for general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

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

A Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Remimazolam-remifentanil causes less postoperative nausea and vomiting than remimazolam-alfentanil during hysteroscopy: a single-centre randomized controlled trial