Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to compare the direct medication costs and clinical effectiveness of using remimazolam versus midazolam for goal-guided sedation therapy in the ICU patients. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted in the ICU of People's Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University. Eighty adult patients admitted to the ICU and requiring sedation were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remimazolam-based sedation (study group, n=40) or midazolam-based sedation (control group, n=40). The inclusion criteria for patient selection were age 18-80 years, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and an expected ICU stay of at least 24 hours. Patients with significant liver or kidney dysfunction, neurological disorders, or contraindications to the study drugs were excluded. The target sedation depth for both groups was a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3-4, which was maintained by titrating the infusion rates of remimazolam or midazolam as needed. Vital signs, sedation scores, and respiratory parameters were closely monitored throughout the sedation period. Results: The time to onset of sedation, time to reach the target sedation depth, time to awakening, and length of ICU stay were all significantly shorter in the remimazolam group compared to the midazolam group (P < .05 for all). The remimazolam group had a mean time to onset of 5.2 ± 1.8 minutes versus 8.9 ± 2.4 minutes in the midazolam group. The mean time to reach the target Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3-4 was 12.6 ± 3.1 minutes in the remimazolam group compared to 18.4 ± 4.2 minutes in the midazolam group. The mean time to awakening was 10.2 ± 2.7 minutes in the remimazolam group versus 16.5 ± 3.9 minutes in the midazolam group. The remimazolam group also had a significantly shorter mean ICU length of stay of 5.1 ± 1.3 days compared to 7.8 ± 2.1 days in the midazolam group (P < .01). The remimazolam group had a significantly higher metabolic clearance rate compared to the midazolam group (P < .001). The Ramsay sedation scores and Wong-Baker FACES pain scores were also significantly lower in the remimazolam group throughout the sedation period (P < .01). There were no significant differences in heart rate between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the remimazolam group compared to the midazolam group (P < .05). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the use of remimazolam-based goal-directed sedation in the ICU setting resulted in significantly faster onset of action, quicker achievement of the target sedation depth, shorter time to awakening, and shorter ICU length of stay compared to midazolam-based sedation. The remimazolam group also had a higher metabolic clearance rate, lower sedation and pain scores, and a lower incidence of adverse events.These findings suggest that remimazolam may provide advantages over midazolam for ICU sedation, potentially leading to improved patient comfort, more efficient utilization of ICU resources, and potentially better clinical outcomes. The rapid onset, titratability, and favorable safety profile of remimazolam make it a promising sedative agent that could help optimize sedation practices in the critical care setting. Further research is warranted to fully evaluate the impact of remimazolam on long-term patient-centered outcomes and overall healthcare costs in the ICU.

Effect/cost ratio of a modified sedation regimen with midazolam and propofol for prolonged sedated patients in ICU

Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective, randomized study

[Propofol versus midazolam. Long-term sedation in the intensive care unit]

Application of propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation

Sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis

Making and application of a standard sedation protocol to patients in ICU

Sequential Use of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Long-Term Sedation May Reduce Weaning Time in Selected Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Patients: a Randomized Controlled Study

Close-Loop Feedback Controlled Infusion of Propofol and Midazolam with BIS for Sedation and Their Effect on Oxygen Consumption

Effects of Propofol and Midazolam on the Prognosis of Patients Treated with Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remimazolam and Midazolam in Goal-Guided Sedation in ICU

Propofol Infusion for Sedation in the ICU

Effect of Propofol, Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine on ICU Patients with Sepsis and on Arterial Blood Gas

The Effects of Midazolam or Propofol Plus Fentanyl on ICU Mortality: a Retrospective Study Based on the MIMIC-IV Database.

Investigation on sedation level and influencing factors in postoperative patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion for Sedation During Coblation-Assisted Upper Airway Procedure.

Effect of Midazolam Pretreatment on Propofol Sedation by Closed-Loop TCI During Epidural Anesthesia

Exmedetomidine Vs Midazolam for Sedation in Critically Ill Patients

Continuous infusion of propofol combined with midazolam for patients undergoing long-time microsurgeries

A comparative study of dexmedetomidine propofol and midazolam with respect to changes in mean arterial pressure and SpO2 after sedation at tertiary health care centre

[The Influence of the Sedation Based on Remifentanil Analgesia on the Occurrence of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients].

The sedative effects of fentanyl on ventilated patients in intensive care unit