Predicting the amount of flumazenil needed to antagonize remimazolam

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Propofol Sedation on the Early Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Day Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Remimazolam tosilate is a novel ultrafast-acting benzodiazepine that has a rapid emergence even after continuous infusion when using flumazenil. So far, relatively few articles are still focusing on the quality of recovery after general anesthesia with remimazolam, especially in day surgery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative quality of recovery of remimazolam tosilate with flumazenil and propofol in patients undergoing day surgery.

Patients and Methods

137 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomly divided into the remimazolam tosilate or propofol group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of overall recovery assessed with the early postoperative quality of recovery scale (PostopQRS) on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), extubation time, postoperative recovery profiles, and perioperative data were documented. Any adverse events were recorded.

Results

The incidence of overall recovery on POD1 was 47.7% in the remimazolam tosilate group and 65.1% in the propofol group (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.072). In general, the overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time, and its interaction between time and group was significant (P = 0.003). Among the five dimensions of PostopQRS, there exist statistical differences between groups including emotional state and cognitive recovery. Upon arrival at the PACU, the remimazolam group was more sedated and took longer to recover to a RASS score similar to propofol. The frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia was similar in both groups (P = 0.119). Despite rapid emergence with remimazolam after flumazenil reversal, re-sedation (10.8%) or somnolence (60%) in the PACU was observed, and the length of PACU stay in patients treated with remimazolam tosilate was longer than that of the propofol (35 min vs 30 min, P<0.001).

Conclusion

General anesthesia with remimazolam tosilate in conjunction with flumazenil reversal permits rapid recovery of consciousness in day surgery, but there was a notable occurrence of re-sedation or somnolence observed in PACU.

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

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.

Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting intravenous benzodiazepine sedative−hypnotic that significantly reduces the times to sedation onset and recovery. This trial was conducted to confirm the recovery time from anesthesia of remimazolam-flumazenil versus propofol in patients undergoing endotracheal surgery under rigid bronchoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing endotracheal tumor resection or stent implantation were randomly allocated into a remimazolam group (Group R) or a propofol group (Group P). The primary outcome was the recovery time from general anesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the time to loss of consciousness (LoC), hemodynamic fluctuations, and adverse events. Results: A total of 34 patients were screened, and 30 patients were enrolled in the study. The recovery time was significantly shorter for Group R (140 ± 52 s) than for Group P (374 ± 195 s) (p < 0.001). The times to LoC were 76 ± 40 s in Group R and 75 ± 25 s in Group P and were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in hemodynamic fluctuations or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: The recovery time from general anesthesia in rigid bronchoscopy patients was shorter using remimazolam-flumazenil than with propofol, with no dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations and adverse events or differences between the agents. Remimazolam-flumazenil allows for faster recovery from anesthesia than propofol.

Quality of Recovery After General Anesthesia with Remimazolam in Patients' Undergoing Urologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Remimazolam with Propofol

Background

Remimazolam is a new medication with sedative and hypnotic effects. It has been demonstrated non-inferior to propofol in general anesthesia with regard to efficacy and safety. However, whether general anesthesia with remimazolam is better than propofol in terms of patients' recovery quality remains unknown.

Patients and Methods

Patients enrolled in this study were randomized to remimazolam or propofol group. In remimazolam group, general anesthesia was induced with remimazolam and sufentanil and maintained with remimazolam and remifentanil. In propofol group, general anesthesia was induced with propofol and sufentanil and maintained with propofol and remifentanil. Neuromuscular blocking agent cisatracurium was also injected during anesthesia. Sedation level was monitored by bispectral index (BIS). Our primary outcome was the quality of patients' postoperative recovery, using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale. Secondary outcomes included SpO2, HR, MBP and frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia, as well as incidences of adverse events in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Results

The global scores of QoR-15 scale were lower in remimazolam group at postoperative day 1 and day 3 compared to propofol group, but differences between the two groups only had clinical significance at postoperative day 1. Among the five dimensions of QoR-15 scale, scores for physical comfort and emotional state were lower in remimazolam group than propofol group. MBP and HR were higher in remimazolam group than propofol group after anesthesia induction. SpO2 was similar in the two groups. The frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia was higher in propofol group than remimazolam group. There was no statistical difference in the incidences of adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusion

General anesthesia with remimazolam can provide more stable hemodynamics but also cause temporary reduction in the quality of recovery in patients undergoing urologic surgery, compared to propofol.