A Comparative Study on Efficacy and Safety of Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine in Sleep Apnea Patients undergoing Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A CONSORT-Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial.

SETTING

Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022.

PATIENTS

A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 μg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 μg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events.

RESULTS

All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with those of propofol for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

METHODS

Patients with OSAHS receiving DISE were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam or propofol group. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2 ] < 90%) during DISE. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of severe hypoxemia (SpO2  < 80%), the minimal value of SpO2 , sedation success rate (completion of DISE according to the medication regimen), and incidence of events of interest (including injection pain, bradycardia, and decreased respiratory rate).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included in this study. The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (25.00% vs 62.50%, respectively; relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.74; p < .01). There was no significant difference in the sedation success rate between the remimazolam and propofol groups (96.88% vs 81.25%, respectively; relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50; p = .10). The incidence of at least 1 event of interest was lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (43.75% vs 96.88%, respectively; relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can present satisfactory sedative efficacy in DISE, with a lower incidence of hypoxemia and a higher safety profile than propofol.

Guidelines of the French Society of ENT (SFORL): Drug-induced sleep endoscopy in adult obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To determine the indications, anesthesiological and surgical procedure and interest of drug-induced sleep endoscopy in the treatment of adult obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

DESIGN

A redactional committee of 17 experts was set up. Conflicts of interest were disclosed and followed up throughout the process of drawing up the guidelines. The work received no funding from any firm dealing in health products (drugs or devices). The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method was applied to assess the quality of the data on which the guidelines were founded. It was stressed that strong recommendations should not be made on the basis of poor-quality or insufficient data.

METHODS

The committee studied 29 questions on 5 topics: indications and contraindications, anesthetic technique, surgical technique, interpretation and reporting of results, and management guided by results.

RESULTS

Expert review and application of the GRADE method led to 30 guidelines: 10 with high level of evidence (Grade 1+ or 1-), 19 with low level (GRADE 2+ or 2-) and 1 expert opinion.

CONCLUSION

Experts fully agreed on the strong guidelines formalizing the indications and modalities of drug-induced sleep endoscopy for adult obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

Combination of Dexmedetomidine and Butorphanol Optimized Sedation in Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

OBJECTIVE

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) allows for the evaluation of dynamic airway collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. However, a standardized sedation regimen for DISE is not yet available. This study aimed to investigate the safety profiles and efficacies of dexmedetomidine combined with butorphanol for DISE.

METHODS

Sixty patients with obstructive sleep apnea scheduled to undergo DISE were randomly divided into Group D and Group DB. All recipients were initially given intravenous butorphanol (1 mg) (Group DB) or saline (Group D). Subsequently, both groups were sedated using a loading dose of 1.0 µg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, the time to attain sufficient sedation, wakeup time, and adverse events during DISE were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group D, the time until sufficient sedation and wakeup time in Group DB were significantly reduced. A higher performer satisfaction level was achieved in Group DB. Patients in Group DB showed a higher incidence of bradycardia compared with Group D. However, the bradycardia resolved spontaneously in both groups without any treatment. There was no instance of cough, hypotension, arrhythmia, nausea or vomiting in either group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to dexmedetomidine alone, a small dose of butorphanol infusion (1 mg) as an adjunct treatment to dexmedetomidine during DISE can reduce the dosage of dexmedetomidine, shorten the time until sufficient sedation and enhance the performer satisfaction level. This synergistic combination could be a promising sedation regimen for DISE in terms of procedural convenience and patient safety.

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

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), I² = 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), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 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.

Dendritic spine remodeling and plasticity under general anesthesia

Ever since its first use in surgery, general anesthesia has been regarded as a medical miracle enabling countless life-saving diagnostic and therapeutic interventions without pain sensation and traumatic memories. Despite several decades of research, there is a lack of understanding of how general anesthetics induce a reversible coma-like state. Emerging evidence suggests that even brief exposure to general anesthesia may have a lasting impact on mature and especially developing brains. Commonly used anesthetics have been shown to destabilize dendritic spines and induce an enhanced plasticity state, with effects on cognition, motor functions, mood, and social behavior. Herein, we review the effects of the most widely used general anesthetics on dendritic spine dynamics and discuss functional and molecular correlates with action mechanisms. We consider the impact of neurodevelopment, anatomical location of neurons, and their neurochemical profile on neuroplasticity induction, and review the putative signaling pathways. It emerges that in addition to possible adverse effects, the stimulation of synaptic remodeling with the formation of new connections by general anesthetics may present tremendous opportunities for translational research and neurorehabilitation.

The Use of Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine for Patients Receiving Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = -7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.04 to -2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = -2.43, 95% CI -3.61 to -1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.