The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis

Xincan An,Tianqi Shen,Xingxing Yin,Jin Xu,Yongming Zhang,Tianlong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02422-y

IF: 2.376

2024-02-01

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:This meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety and efficiency of remimazolam with those of propofol in patients undergoing gastroscope sedation.

anesthesiology

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 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.
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
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.
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 efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Di Chen,Min Liao,Xiao-ru Wu,Tang-yuan-meng Zhao,Hu Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58294-2

IF: 4.6

2024-04-02

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED 95 ) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED 95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED 95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED 95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160–0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007–1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference ( P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions ( P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.

multidisciplinary sciences
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 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.
Remimazolam versus propofol for endoscopy sedation in elderly patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Marcela T Terres,Maria L Assis,Carlos B DA Silveira,Sara Amaral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18027-3

Abstract:Introduction: Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a new drug, offers advantages such as rapid onset and recovery. The sedation protocols for this population vary, requiring tailored titration of sedatives. The comparative safety of these drugs in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation remains unclear, as previous studies primarily focus on the general population. We aimed to compare the safety profiles of remimazolam and propofol in this context. in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Evidence acquisition: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation. Our outcomes were the incidence of adverse effects. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted on all outcomes to assess the adequacy of the sample size in supporting our findings. Evidence synthesis: We selected seven RCTs including 1499 patients, of whom 764 (50.96%) were randomized to receive remimazolam. Remimazolam exhibited a significantly lower risk of adverse events, including hypoxemia, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, and injection pain, compared to propofol. Incidences of PONV, dizziness and headache, did not significantly differ between the groups. The findings of the TSA indicated that our sample size was sufficiently large to render further studies inconsequential for most outcomes. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in elderly patients having gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam could be safer than propofol. This population may benefit from remimazolam's lower risk of adverse events, notably hypoxemia and respiratory depression.
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
Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Dongbin Li,Yu Wang,Yang Xing,Zicen Zhao,Liya Chang,Yufang Leng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01774-2

2024-07-31

Abstract:Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new type of benzodiazepine currently used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and can be combined with alfentanil. Aim: This trial compared the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam with alfentanil to propofol with alfentanil in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Method: One hundred and sixty-six patients were randomly divided into propofol-alfentanil anaesthesia (Group P) and remimazolam-alfentanil anaesthesia (Group R). The primary outcomes were perioperative haemodynamic variables, including systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) preoperatively (T0); after anaesthesia induction (T1); when the gastroscope passed through the oropharynx (T2); 3 min (T3), 5 min (T4) and 7 min (T5) after T2; at the end of surgery (T6); and when patients successfully awakened (T7). The secondary outcomes included induction and awakening time, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and adverse event occurrences. Results: Compared with those in Group P, the SBP in Group R was significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, and T6 (P < 0.05); the DBP and MAP were significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, T5, and T6 (P < 0.05); the HR was significantly faster at T1 to T6 (P < 0.05); the SpO2 was significantly higher at T1 to T4 (P < 0.05); the incidences of hypoxemia, hypotension, and drug injection pain were significantly lower in Group R (P < 0.05); the incidence of hiccups was higher (P < 0.05); the awakening time was shorter in Group R (P < 0.05); and the operator satisfaction score was high (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared to propofol with alfentanil, remimazolam with alfentanil can be used safely and effectively for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, with less impact on the patient's circulatory and respiratory systems and a lower incidence of adverse events. Trial registration: This trial protocol was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCR2300077252, date: 2023-11-02).
Efficacy and Safety of the Remimazolam-Alfentanil Combination for Sedation During Gastroscopy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Single-center Controlled Trial

Wenyan Shi,Yi Cheng,Hongying He,Qiang Fang,Yi Hu,Xinpeng Xu,Yu Shuai,Jie Zhang,Xingguo Fang,Zhao Wang,Yi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.09.014

Abstract:Purpose: Propofol infusion is a popular single drug of choice for sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite. Drug combinations are more beneficial than single-drug regimens in gastroscopy sedation. However, the cardiopulmonary complications of propofol sedation raise concern. Remimazolam is a novel, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative, and alfentanil is a weak opioid. During endoscopic procedures, remimazolam is an effective and safe sedative procedure. No synergistic effect has been reported when remimazolam was combined with alfentanil in gastroscopy sedation. Here, we evaluated the effective dose, sedative efficacy, and safety of the remimazolam-alfentanil combination in gastroscopy sedation and compared the results with those of the propofol-alfentanil combination. Methods: This study was conducted in two parts. In Part 1, Dixon's up-and-down method (sequential distribution) was adopted for determining the 95% effective dose (ED95) (95% CI) and 95% CI of remimazolam combined with 5 µg/kg alfentanil. In Part 2, after obtaining the predictive remimazolam ED95, 161 patients were randomized into the remimazolam group (remimazolam-alfentanil) and the propofol group (propofol-alfentanil). The effectiveness of the drug combinations was measured according to successful sedation parameters. Changes in vital signs and the appearance of adverse events were used to assess the safety of drug combinations. Evaluation of patient and physician satisfaction was included as quality indicators of treatment. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 parts of the study. The ED95 of remimazolam in inhibiting a positive response to gastroscopy placement into the pharyngeal cavity was 0.33 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.289 to 1.023). The procedure success rate was 97.53% in the remimazolam group and 97.50% in the propofol group. The difference in the success rate of the procedure between the remimazolam and propofol groups was 0.03% (95% CI, -2.5 to 2.4). However, the incidence of injection pain, hypotension, respiratory depression, and dizziness was lower in the remimazolam group compared with the propofol group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, patients from the propofol group were more likely to be drowsy, and their work efficiency was reduced the day after leaving the hospital, whereas patients in the remimazolam group were less affected (P < 0.05). Implications: The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.33 mg/kg when it was combined with alfentanil (5 µg/kg) for gastroscopy sedation. The sedation strategy of remimazolam-alfentanil has noninferior efficacy, fewer adverse effects, and a better postoperative recovery process than propofol-alfentanil for patients undergoing gastroscopy. Chinese Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ChiCTR2100051565.
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.
Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate Vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery

Yunping Huang,Di Zheng,Kai Xu,Jun Li,Yimei Gu,Zhiwei Yin,Junli Pan,Jian Shen,Xiaoyun Lu,Feifei Zhong,Yanfen Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae033

2024-02-10

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Abstract:Abstract Background Use of local anesthesia, conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation and which produces less adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery. Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort and incidence of adverse reactions of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery. Methods In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations. Results There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 mg) was lower than for the propofol group (600 mg). The incidence of oxygen saturation reduction (P = 0.046) and towing of the mandibular (P = 0.028), as well as wake-up (P = 0.027) and injection pain (P = 0.008), were significantly higher in the propofol group compared to the remimazolam group. Conclusions Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

surgery
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.
Safety and effectiveness of the combination of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in gastroscopy: a multicenter, randomized controlled, single-blind clinical trial

Chunyan Wang,Yangzheng Gao,Jie Li,Linlin Zhang,Qing Li,Yize Li,Yuechun Lu,Jiangang Sun,Yang Zhang,Yaobei Cheng,Shidong Zhang,Guolin Wang,Yonghao Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1124667

IF: 5.6

2023-05-31

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptors agonist. However, its optimal use mode and dosage still remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of RT and propofol in gastroscopy. This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study. All eligible 256 patients were randomized into the following 3 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (Group P), RT (Group R) or the combination of RT and propofol (Group RP). The primary efficacy endpoints were: body movement score; satisfaction of gastroscopy doctors; success rate of sedation and effects on sleep status. Sedation induction time, time to be fully alert and adverse events were also recorded. The probability of complete immobility was lower in group R (33.73%) than in group P (86.67%) and RP (83.13%). The rate of doctors' satisfaction was much lower in group R (28.92%) than in group P (77.78%) and RP (72.29%). The success rate of sedation and sleep outcome score has no difference in the three groups. The time to adequate sedation was longer in group RP (77.27 ± 18.63 s) than in group P (64.47 ± 24.36 s), but much shorter than that in group R (102.84 ± 46.43s). The time to be fully alert was shorter in group R (6.30 ± 1.52 min) and RP (6.54 ± 1.13 min) than in group P (7.87 ± 1.08 min). The proportion of sedative hypotension was significantly higher in group P (41.11%) than in group R (1.20%) and group RP (3.61%) ( p < 0.001). The incidence of respiratory depression was much higher in group P (17.78%) than in group R (no patient) and group RP (1.2%). The incidence of adverse events was lower in groups R (4.82%) and RP (9.64%) than in group P (31.11%). The combination of RT and propofol takes effect quickly, makes patients alert quickly, provides a sufficient depth of sedation, reduces body movement, does not inhibit circulation and respiratory function, does not affect sleep, and is the preferred mode for gastroscopy doctors and anesthesiologists.

pharmacology & pharmacy
A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures

Shu-An Dong,Yan Guo,Sha-Sha Liu,Li-Li Wu,Li-Na Wu,Kai Song,Jing-Hua Wang,Hui-Rong Chen,Wei-Zhi Li,Huan-Xi Li,Li Zhang,Jian-Bo Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111077

IF: 9.375

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract:STUDY OBJECTIVE: In many countries, the combination of propofol and opioid is used as the preferred sedative regime during ERCP. However, the most serious risks of propofol sedation are oxygen deficiency and hypotension. Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, and to achieve widespread acceptance for procedural sedation, remimazolam must replace propofol which is the most commonly used for procedural sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the remimazolam and propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures.DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, single-center trial.SETTING: The Endoscopic Centre of Tianjin Nankai Hospital, China.PATIENTS: 518 patients undergoing elective ERCP under deep sedation.INTERVENTIONS: Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to be sedated with either a combination of remimazolam-alfentanil or propofol-alfentanil.MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the prevalence of hypoxia, which was defined as SpO<sub>2</sub> < 90% for >10 s. Other outcomes were the need for airway maneuver, procedure, and sedation-related outcomes and side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and cardiovascular adverse events).MAIN RESULTS: A total of 518 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 250 were assigned to the remimazolam group and 255 to the propofol group. During ERCP, 9.6% of patients in the remimazolam group showed hypoxia, while in the propofol group, 15.7% showed hypoxia (p = 0.04). The need for airway maneuvering due to hypoxia was significantly greater in the propofol group (p = 0.04). Furthermore, patients sedated with remimazolam had a lower percentage of hypotension than patients sedated with propofol (p < 0.001). Patients receiving remimazolam sedation expressed higher satisfaction scores and were recommended the same sedation for the next ERCP. The procedure time in the remimazolam group was much longer than in the propofol group due to the complexity of the patient's disease, which resulted in a longer sedation time.CONCLUSION: During elective ERCP, patients administered with remimazolam showed fewer respiratory depression events under deep sedation with hemodynamic advantages over propofol when administered in combination with alfentanil.

anesthesiology
Etomidate Combined with Propofol versus Remimazolam for Sedation in Elderly Patients During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial

Qin Zhang,Rui Zhao,Yaqing Wu,Liming Zhang,Yi Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S454314

2024-07-02

Abstract:Purpose: Remimazolam is a novel short-acting benzodiazepine used for sedation and general anesthesia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate in elderly patients who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and methods: A total of 120 patients aged 60-75 years were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Remifentanil 0.3μg/kg was used for analgesia. Patients were administered remimazolam besylate 7 mg (R group) or etomidate 0.1 mg/kg combined with 1% propofol 0.5 mg/kg (EP group) for induction, supplemental repeated doses were given as needed. Some time metrics, vital signs, adverse events were evaluated. Patients' Mini-cog score and recovery questionnaires were compared. Results: Compared to the EP group, the induction time was slightly longer in the R group (1.50 VS 1.15 minutes) (P<0.05), the time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) was shorter (15.17 VS 17.40 minutes) (P<0.05). Compare with EP group, SBP was lower in R group at T15 and T25 time point, but heart rate was higher in T2, T3, T5 (P< 0.05). The Mini-Cog score was higher after the procedure (2.83 VS 2.58) (P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events was higher in the EP group than R group (18.3% VS 5.0%, P < 0.05). The most common adverse event in R group was hiccups. The sedation satisfaction rate and degree of amnesia were higher in the R group (66.7% VS 11.7%) (P < 0.05), and the effect on patient's life within 24 hours was lower (12.0% VS 30.5%) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate are not inferior to those of etomidate combined with propofol, rendering it a safe option for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in ASA I-II elderly patients, but care should be taken to monitor the occurrence of hiccups.
Effect of remimazolam vs propofol in high-risk patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Zhi Li,Daming Yuan,Yu Yu,Jie Xu,Weili Yang,Li Chen,Nanbo Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-07934-z

IF: 2.728

2024-01-29

Trials

Abstract:Procedural sedation is essential for optimizing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in high-risk patients with multiple underlying diseases. Respiratory and circulatory complications present significant challenges for procedural sedation in this population. This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the safety and comfort of remimazolam compared to propofol for procedural sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in high-risk patients.

medicine, research & experimental
Remimazolam has similar anesthetic effect and superior safety compared to propofol in elderly patients: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liyun Dong,Tianze Sun,Jiecheng Yang,Yue Zhou,Xinyan Liu,Zhijie Liu,Hangyu Lv,Zhen Ma,Yongxue Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12273

IF: 3.282

2024-07-03

World Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background The superiority between remimazolam and propofol for anesthesia is controversial in elderly patients (≥60 years). This meta‐analysis aimed to systematically compare anesthetic effect and safety profile between remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients under any surgery. Methods Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched until December 25, 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials. Results Ten studies with 806 patients receiving remimazolam (experimental group) and 813 patients receiving propofol (control group) were included. Time to loss of consciousness [standard mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.347 (−0.362, 3.055), p = 0.122] and recovery time [SMD (95% CI): −0.022 (−0.300, 0.257), p = 0.879] were similar between experimental and control groups. Mean arterial pressure at baseline minus 1 min after induction [SMD (95% CI): −1.800 (−3.250, −0.349), p = 0.015], heart rate at baseline minus 1 min after induction [SMD (95% CI): −1.041 (−1.537, −0.545), p

surgery

The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

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

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

Remimazolam versus propofol for endoscopy sedation in elderly patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

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

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and Safety of the Remimazolam-Alfentanil Combination for Sedation During Gastroscopy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Single-center Controlled Trial

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

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate Vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery

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

Safety and effectiveness of the combination of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in gastroscopy: a multicenter, randomized controlled, single-blind clinical trial

A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures

Etomidate Combined with Propofol versus Remimazolam for Sedation in Elderly Patients During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial

Effect of remimazolam vs propofol in high-risk patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Remimazolam has similar anesthetic effect and superior safety compared to propofol in elderly patients: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials