Comparison of 95% effective dose of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopy sedation on older patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

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

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 < 0.001], incidences of hypoxemia [relative risk (RR) (95% CI): 0.247 (0.138, 0.444), p < 0.001], respiratory depression [RR (95% CI): 0.458 (0.300, 0.700), p < 0.001], bradycardia [RR (95% CI): 0.409 (0.176, 0.954), p = 0.043], hypotension [RR (95% CI): 0.415 (0.241, 0.714), p = 0.007], and injection pain [RR (95% CI): 0.172 (0.113, 0.263), p < 0.001] were lower in the experimental group compared to the control group. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was not different between groups [RR (95% CI): 1.194 (0.829, 1.718), p = 0.341]. Moreover, this meta-analysis displayed a low risk of bias, minimal publication bias, and good robustness.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam shows comparative anesthetic effect and better safety profile than propofol in elderly patients under any surgery.

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Besylate versus Dexmedetomidine for Patients Undergoing Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Remimazolam besylate is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that is rapidly hydrolyzed to zolpidem propionic acid by tissue lipases. We designed this study to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate alfentanil versus dexmedetomidine-alfentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB).

Methods

One hundred and twenty patients undergoing FB into this prospective randomized controlled trial were divided into two groups. The anesthesia induction consisted of 6 mg/kg/h of remimazolam besylate in the RA group and 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine in the DA group. 1-2 mg/kg/h of remimazolam besylate or 0.2-0.7 µg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine were administered to maintain during FB. The lowest oxygen saturation, success rate of FB, hemodynamics, time metrics, bronchoscopy feasibility, drug dose requirements, patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction scores, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, number of patients willing to repeat FB with the same sedation regimen, and occurrence and severity of adverse events.

Results

The lowest oxygen saturation during the FB was significantly higher in the RA group (P = 0.001). Compared with the variables in the DA group, peripheral oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were significantly lower at T2 and T3 in the RA group (P < 0.05). Heart rates were significantly higher from T2 to T4 in the DA group (P < 0.05). More patients experienced bradycardia in the DA group (P = 0.041). Compared with time metrics in the DA group, the induction time, fully-alert time, and recovery room-leaving time were all significantly shorter in the RA group (P < 0.05). The bronchoscopy feasibility scores in the RA group were significantly lower at T2, whereas they were lower at T3 in the DA group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam besylate is superior to dexmedetomidine when combined with alfentanil during FB, promoting faster patients' recovery, better operative conditions and respiratory stability with similar rates of occurrence and severity of adverse events.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Treatment-resistant hiccups during general anesthesia possibly caused by remimazolam: a case report

BACKGROUND

Previous reports have described hiccups during general anesthesia that were possibly induced by drugs, including benzodiazepines. However, there are few reports of hiccups caused by remimazolam. Case presentation A 75-year-old woman underwent corneal transplantation under general anesthesia with remimazolam. She presented with hiccups once the effects of muscle relaxants used during induction wore off, which persisted even after various treatments, such as the administration of antipsychotic drugs. However, when remimazolam administration was terminated after surgery to awaken the patient, the hiccups stopped and did not recur after extubation. Evaluation of predicted blood levels of remimazolam suggests that higher levels of remimazolam might cause hiccups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam might induce hiccups during general anesthesia. Anesthesiologists should consider administering muscle relaxants or changing the anesthetic in cases of refractory hiccups under general anesthesia.

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.

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

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 (ED95) 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 ED95 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, ED95 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 ED95 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.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Comparison of the bispectral indices of patients receiving remimazolam and propofol for general anesthesia: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a safe and effective new benzodiazepine sedative that has unique advantages in anesthesia induction and maintenance. The differences in the electroencephalogram bispectral index (BIS) during general anesthesia between propofol and remimazolam deserve further exploration.

METHODS

Single-center randomized crossover study. Patients who required multiple hysteroscopic surgery were randomly assigned to use remimazolam (0.27 mg/kg for induction and 1 mg/kg/h for maintenance) first and then propofol (2.0 mg/kg for induction and 6 mg/kg/h for maintenance) during hysteroscopic surgery again 3 months later, or in the opposite order. Both drugs were used at the latest ED95 for unconsciousness. The BIS values (primary endpoint), intraoperative conditions, and incidence of adverse reactions (secondary endpoints) were compared at each time point. BIS values were analyzed with a mixed model of repeated measurements (MMRM).

RESULTS

Seventeen patients completed the study. The lowest BIS value in the remimazolam regimen was significantly higher than that in the propofol regimen (p = 0.001). The MMRM analysis of the BIS values revealed significant differences between the regimens at each time point (p < 0.001). The intraoperative diastolic blood pressure and heart rate changes were smaller, the recovery was faster, and there were fewer adverse reactions and less injection pain, but a greater incidence of intraoperative body movement and hiccups, in the remimazolam regimen.

CONCLUSION

The trial indicated that remimazolam maintained a higher BIS level than propofol. The correlation between the BIS and the depth of anesthesia induced by remimazolam needs to be further studied.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ChiCTR2200064551.

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

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.

Distribution and elimination kinetics of midazolam and metabolites after post-resuscitation care: a prospective observational study

Administration of sedatives for post-resuscitation care can complicate the determination of the optimal timing to avoid inappropriate, pessimistic prognostications. This prospective study aimed to investigate the distribution and elimination kinetics of midazolam (MDZ) and its metabolites, and their association with awakening time. The concentrations of MDZ and its seven metabolites were measured immediately and at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after the discontinuation of MDZ infusion, using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The area under the time-plasma concentration curve from 0 to 24 h after MDZ discontinuation (AUClast) was calculated based on the trapezoidal rule. Of the 15 enrolled patients, seven awakened after the discontinuation of MDZ infusion. MDZ and three of its metabolites were major compounds and their elimination kinetics followed a first-order elimination profile. In the multivariable analysis, only MDZ was associated with awakening time (AUClast: R2 = 0.59, p = 0.03; AUCinf: R2 = 0.96, p < 0.001). Specifically, a 0.001% increase in MDZ AUC was associated with a 1% increase in awakening time. In the individual regression analysis between MDZ concentration and awakening time, the mean MDZ concentration at awakening time was 16.8 ng/mL. The AUC of MDZ is the only significant factor associated with the awakening time.