Remimazolam tosilate compared with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective, randomized and controlled study

Clinical Application of Bilateral Nasopharyngeal Airway in Painless Colonoscopy for Obese Patients

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using bilateral nasopharyngeal airways (NPA) during colonoscopic polypectomy performed under sedation anesthesia in obese patients.

Methods

Ninety obese patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy under elective sedation anesthesia at Shanghai Shuguang Hospital were randomly allocated to two groups. Patients in group B had a nasopharyngeal airway inserted bilaterally after induction of anesthesia, whereas patients in group U had a nasopharyngeal airway inserted in only one nostril. Spontaneous breathing was maintained in both groups. The primary observation parameter was the incidence of oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 92% during anesthesia, while secondary observation parameters included preoperative, intraoperative, and post-operative SpO2 levels, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), dosage of propofol, duration of the operation, time to anesthesia recovery, need for emergency airway intervention, and occurrence of other adverse events.

Results

Hypoxia occurred in 5 out of 45 patients (11.1%) in group B, whereas it was observed in 14 out of 45 patients (31.1%) in group U (P < 0.05). Patients in group B exhibited higher SpO2 levels during and after surgery compared to those in group U (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the decrease in intraoperative and post-operative SpO2 levels from baseline was significantly lower in group B compared to group U (P < 0.05). The number of emergency airway interventions, operation time, propofol dosage, and anesthesia recovery time were significantly lower in group B compared to group U (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in MAP, HR, or the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The utilization of bilateral nasopharyngeal airway placement proves to be an effective strategy in decreasing the occurrence of hypoxia among obese patients undergoing colonoscopy under sedation anesthesia, thereby improving procedural safety.

Remimazolam and Its Place in the Current Landscape of Procedural Sedation and General Anesthesia

Remimazolam was derived from its parent compound by adding an ester linkage into its structure so that the drug becomes a substrate for ester metabolism. As a result, it undergoes organ-independent ester hydrolysis, although the clinical benefits in terms of shorter recovery are not uniformly observed in clinical practice. Remimazolam is mainly tested in procedural sedation. In comparison to propofol, the current gold standard for procedural sedation, its proposed attractiveness is shorter wake-up times and a clear-headed recovery. Its clear advantages over propofol are better hemodynamic stability, lack of pain on injection and availability of a reversal agent in the form of flumazenil. Data on patient and proceduralist satisfaction are lacking. Remimazolam is also used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in Japan (where it is approved for this purpose). In this scenario, it is not clear if it can achieve the same degree of lack of recall as propofol. The use of remimazolam in obstetrics, pediatrics and high-risk populations is an emerging area.

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.

Comparison of remimazolam tosilate and propofol during induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, single center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of RT for general anesthesia in patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

In this study, 122 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to receive either remimazolam tosilate (Group RT) or propofol group (Group P). RT was administered as a slow bolus of 0.3 mg kg- 1 for induction, followed by 1.0-2.0 mg kg- 1 h- 1 for maintenance of general anesthesia. Propofol was started at 2 mg kg- 1 and followed by 4-10 mg kg- 1 h- 1 until the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the time to bispectral index (BIS) ≤ 60. The secondary outcome included the time to loss of consciousness (LoC), and the time to extubation. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients were recruited for study participation. Among them, the time to BIS ≤ 60 in Group RT was longer than that in Group P (Group RT: 89.3 ± 10.7 s; Group P: 85.9 ± 9.7 s, P > 0.05). While the time to LoC comparing remimazolam and propofol showed no statistical significance (Group RT: 74.4 ± 10.3 s; Group P: 74.7 ± 9.3 s, P > 0.05). The time to extubation in Group RT was significantly longer than that in Group P (Group RT: 16.0 ± 2.6 min; Group P: 8.8 ± 4.3 min, P < 0.001). Remimazolam tosilate had more stable hemodynamics and a lower incidence of hypotension during general anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam tosilate can be safely and effectively used for general anesthesia in patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. It maintains stable hemodynamics during induction and maintenance of general anesthesia compared with propofol. Further studies are needed to validate the findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2300071256 (date of registration: 09/05/2023).

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

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.

ED50 and ED95 of Remimazolam Tosilate Combined with Different Doses of Fentanyl in Elderly Patients for Painless Gastroscopy

Background

The novel short-acting benzodiazepine drug, remimazolam tosilate, has been employed for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The optimal loading dosage of remimazolam tosilate in gastroscopy for elderly patients when co-administered with fentanyl remains unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of our research was to ascertain the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of remimazolam tosilate in combination with various fentanyl dosages for elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

Methods

Seventy-five patients aged ≥65 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I-III were recruited to undergo elective painless gastroscopy. All patients were randomized assigned to group F1, group F2, and group F3, and were injected intravenously with different doses of fentanyl (0.5 ug/kg, 1 ug/kg, and 1.5 ug/kg) 3 minutes prior to the administration of remimazolam tosilate, respectively. The initial preset dose of remimazolam tosilate was 0.3 mg/kg in group F1, 0.2 mg/kg in group F2, 0.15 mg/kg in group F3. The dose gradient was 0.02 mg/kg per group according to the up-and-down sequential method. Probibt regression model was employed to determine the ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam tosilate.

Results

The ED50 of remimazolam tosilate in group F3 was lower than that in group F1 and F2 (0.095 [0.088-0.108] mg/kg vs 0.162 [0.153-0.171] mg/kg; 0.258 [0.249-0.266] mg/kg, p < 0.05). The ED95 of remimazolam tosilate was 0.272 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.264-0.295 mg/kg) in group F1, 0.175 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.167-0.200 mg/kg) in group F2 and 0.109 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.101-0.135 mg/kg) in group F3. The total dosage of remimazolam tosilate decreased gradually with the increasing of fentanyl (p < 0.001). The frequency of injection pain was higher in group F1 compared to groups F2 and F3 (p < 0.05). The patients in group F3 had a lower incidence of hypotension than in groups F1 and F2 (p < 0.05). There was no respiratory depression, intraoperative consciousness, dizziness or delirium in the three groups.

Conclusion

The concurrent use of fentanyl reduces the dosage of remimazolam tosilate required for sedative gastroscopy in elderly patients in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, 1.5 ug/kg fentanyl combined with remimazolam tosilate may reduce the incidence of hypotension and injection pain. These findings should be confirmed in a large-scale study.

Remimazolam-flumazenil provides fast recovery from general anesthesia compared to propofol during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

The optimal anesthetic agent for radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on the recovery profiles remain uncertain. We compared the recovery and hemodynamic parameters between the remimazolam-flumazenil and propofol groups during RFCA. Patients were randomized into the remimazolam-flumazenil and propofol groups. The primary outcome measure was the time to eye opening following the discontinuation of anesthetic agents. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, time to discharge from the operating room, intraprocedural hemodynamic variables and postoperative quality outcomes. Fifty-three patients were included in the final analysis (n = 26 in the remimazolam-flumazenil and n = 27 in the propofol group). The time to eye opening was significantly shorter in the remimazolam-flumazenil group compared to the propofol group (median [interquartile range]: 174 [157-216] vs. 353 [230-483] s, P < 0.001). The mean blood pressure and bispectral index were significantly higher in the remimazolam-flumazenil group compared to the propofol group (mean difference [95% CI], 7.2 [1.7-12.7] mmHg and 6 [3-8]; P = 0.011 and < 0.001, respectively), which were within target ranges in both groups. Other secondary outcomes were comparable between the groups. Consequently, remimazolam emerges as a promising anesthetic agent, characterized by rapid recovery and stable hemodynamics, during RFCA of AF.Trial registration: NCT05397886.

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.

Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed gastroenterological procedure in patients associated with anxiety and pain. Various approaches have been used to provide sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy, including patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS). This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of PCAS administered with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed in an authorized and approved endoscopy center. A total of 80 outpatients were recruited for the colonoscopy studies. Patients were randomly allocated into PCAS and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) groups. In the PCAS group, the dose of 0.1 ml/kg/min of the mixture was injected after an initial bolus of 3 ml mixture (1 ml containing 3 mg of propofol and 10 μg of remifentanil). Each 1 ml of bolus was delivered with a lockout time of 1 min. In the TIVA group, patients were administered fentanyl 1 μg/kg, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, and propofol (dosage titrated). Cardiorespiratory parameters and auditory evoked response index were continuously monitored during the procedure. The recovery from anesthesia was assessed using the Aldrete scale and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale was used to assess the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were observed in the Visual Analogue Scale scores of the patients (9.58 vs 9.50) and the endoscopist (9.43 vs 9.30). A significant decline in the mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and auditory evoked response index parameters was recorded in the TIVA group (P < 0.05). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the PCAS group than in the TIVA group (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

The combination of remifentanil and propofol could provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery in the PCAS group of patients compared with the TIVA group.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided superior hypogastric plexus block combined with conscious sedation in ambulatory patients undergoing percutaneous microwave ablation of uterine myomas: Study protocol for a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Background

Pain is a major challenge in performing ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation (PMWA) of uterine myomas. Inadequate analgesia by local anesthetics hinders the possibility of conducting PMWA of uterine myomas in the Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) of the Department of Ultrasound.

Objective

The superior hypogastric plexus (SHP) forms a suitable target for pain relief through the blockade, as it contains nociceptive afferent fibers from pelvic organs such as the uterus, rectum, and bladder. Superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB) has demonstrated promise as an alternative treatment option for alleviating pelvic pain, reducing opioid consumption, and improving quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-guided SHPB combined with conscious sedation as an alternative anesthesia option for ambulatory patients receiving ultrasound-guided PMWA of uterine myomas.

Methods and analysis

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be carried out at the Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University. Women scheduled for ultrasound-guided PMWA of uterine myomas will be eligible. 86 patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to either the intervention or control groups in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group will undergo ultrasound-guided superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB) combined with conscious sedation, while the control group will receive local anesthesia combined with conscious sedation. The primary outcome is the success rate of anesthesia, secondary outcomes include vasoactive drug consumption, acetaminophen consumption, sleep quality, sonographer satisfaction score, patient satisfaction score, the detained time in hospital, and adverse events.

Discussions

This RCT represents the inaugural effort to specifically evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided SHPB combined with conscious sedation in patients undergoing ultrasound-guided PMWA of uterine myomas and will provide valuable evidence and insight into the analgesic management of this ambulatory surgery.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (Scientific Research Ethics Review 2023, No. 139). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Safety and effcacy of remimazolam tosilate for sedation during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for orthopedic procedures: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Remimazolam in the context of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for sedation during orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (N = 80), who were randomly allocated to receive either dexmedetomidine (Group-D) or remimazolam (Group-R). The target sedation range aimed for a Ramsay score of 2-5 or a BIS value of 60-80 to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam during sedation.

RESULTS

The time taken to achieve the desired level of sedation was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group compared to the dexmedetomidine group (3.69 ± 0.75 vs. 9.59 ± 1.03; P < 0.0001). Patients in the remimazolam group exhibited quicker recovery, fewer intraoperative adverse events, more consistent vital signs, and greater satisfaction at various time points throughout the surgery.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study demonstrates that remimazolam tosilate serves as a safe and effective sedative for orthopedic surgery performed under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, in comparison with dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background: Remimazolam has shown similar or even superior properties to propofol in procedural sedation in adults, but few studies have been conducted in pediatric populations. Thus, we aimed to compare the effect and safety of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). Methods: Pediatrics <18 years scheduled for elective BDE under sedation were included and randomly assigned to remimazolam group (R group) or propofol group (P group). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes include sedation-related information and adverse events. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and perfusion index (PI) were recorded during sedation. Results: A total of 106 patients were enrolled and analyzed. The success rate of sedation was 100% in both groups. Compared with the P group, the induction time of the R group was significantly prolonged (p < 0.001), and the incidence of injection pain, intraoperative respiratory depression, hypotension and bradycardia was significantly lower (p < 0.001). The changes in MAP, HR and PI were relatively stable in the R group compared with the P group. Additionally, awake time significantly decreased with age by approximately 1.12 index points for each increase in age in the P group (p = 0.002) but not in the R group (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the decline in PI and PI ratio during BDE was related to body movement in the P group. Conclusion: Remimazolam combined with low dose esketamine has a non-inferior sedative effect than propofol for pediatric BDE, with no injection pain, less respiratory depression, more stable hemodynamics. Moreover, early detection of the decline in PI may avoid harmful stimulation under light anesthesia. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05686863?id=NCT05686863&rank=1, NCT05686863.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SINOMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that reported on remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscope sedation from establishment to February 25, 2023. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17 were used to perform all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 26 randomized controlled trials involving 3,641 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that remimazolam had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.57; p < 0.01, GRADE high), hypoxemia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.49; p < 0.01, GRADE high), bradycardia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.51; p < 0.01, GRADE high), dizziness (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.65; p < 0.01, GRADE high), injection site pain (RR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.03-0.13; p < 0.01, GRADE high), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; p = 0.05, GRADE moderate), and hypotension (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.48; p < 0.01, GRADE low).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam can be used safely in gastroscopic sedation and reduces the incidence of respiratory depression, hypoxemia, bradycardia, injection site pain, and dizziness compared with propofol, and doesn't increase the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Molecular mechanisms of cholinergic neurotransmission in visceral smooth muscles with a focus on receptor-operated TRPC4 channel and impairment of gastrointestinal motility by general anaesthetics and anxiolytics

Acetylcholine is the primary excitatory neurotransmitter in visceral smooth muscles, wherein it binds to and activates two muscarinic receptors subtypes, M2 and M3, thus causing smooth muscle excitation and contraction. The first part of this review focuses on the types of cells involved in cholinergic neurotransmission and on the molecular mechanisms underlying acetylcholine-induced membrane depolarisation, which is the central event of excitation-contraction coupling causing Ca2+ entry via L-type Ca2+ channels and smooth muscle contraction. Studies of the muscarinic cation current in intestinal myocytes (mICAT) revealed its main molecular counterpart, receptor-operated TRPC4 channel, which is activated in synergy by both M2 and M3 receptors. M3 receptors activation is of permissive nature, while activation of M2 receptors via Gi/o proteins that are coupled to them plays a direct role in TRPC4 opening. Our understanding of signalling pathways underlying mICAT generation has vastly expanded in recent years through studies of TRPC4 gating in native cells and its regulation in heterologous cells. Recent studies using muscarinic receptor knockout have established that at low agonist concentration activation of both M2 receptor and the M2/M3 receptor complex elicits smooth muscle contraction, while at high agonist concentration M3 receptor function becomes dominant. Based on this knowledge, in the second part of this review we discuss the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the numerous anticholinergic effects on neuroactive drugs, in particular general anaesthetics and anxiolytics, which can significantly impair gastrointestinal motility. This article is part of the Special Issue on "Ukrainian Neuroscience".

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosilate combined with low-dose fentanyl for procedural sedation in obese patients undergoing gastroscopy: study protocol for a single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Obese patients are susceptible to hypoxaemia during procedural sedation. Propofol combined with low-dose opioids is commonly used as a sedation strategy, but it can exacerbate hypoxaemia by causing cardiopulmonary depression and airway obstruction, especially in obese patients. Remimazolam, a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has minimal accumulative effects and less cardiorespiratory depression. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining remimazolam tosilate with low-dose fentanyl as an alternative option for procedural sedation in obese patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted in the Endoscopy Centre of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, recruiting 174 participants scheduled for painless gastroscopy with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg×m-2. All patients will be randomly divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. The sedation strategy of the intervention group is remimazolam tosilate combined with fentanyl, while the control group is propofol combined with fentanyl. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxaemia and the secondary outcomes include the time to ambulation, need for airway manoeuvres and rescue sedation, sleep quality, the incidence of sedation failure, adverse events and the cost of sedatives. All statistical tests will be performed using IBM SPSS V.20.0 statistical software. A p value<0.05 is considered statistically significant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This RCT was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (Scientific Research Ethics Review 2022, No.093). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2200067076.

Comparison of oxygen reserve index according to the remimazolam or dexmedetomidine for intraoperative sedation under regional anesthesia-A single-blind randomized controlled trial

Introduction

We aimed to evaluate the difference in intraoperative oxygen reserve index (ORi) between the sedatives remimazolam (RMMZ) and dexmedetomidine (DEX).

Methods

Seventy-eight adult patients scheduled for sedation under regional anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the DEX (n = 39) or RMMZ (n = 39) group. The primary outcome was the difference in perioperative ORi between the groups. The secondary outcomes included respiratory depression, hypo- or hypertension, heart rate (HR), blood pressure, respiratory rate and postoperative outcomes. Additionally, the number of patients who experienced a decrease in intraoperative ORi to < 50% and the associated factors were analyzed.

Results

The ORi was significantly higher in the RMMZ group at 15 min after sedation maintenance. There were no significant differences in respiratory depression between the two groups. The intraoperative HR was significantly higher in the RMMZ group after the induction of sedation, 15 min after sedation maintenance, and at the end of surgery. No other results were significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of a decrease in intraoperative ORi to < 50% was significantly higher in the DEX group. Factors associated with a decrease in the intraoperative ORi to < 50% were diabetes mellitus, low baseline peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and DEX use. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for a decrease in the intraoperative ORi to < 50%, the cutoff baseline SpO2 was 97%.

Conclusion

RMMZ is recommended as a sedative for patients with a low baseline SpO2 and intraoperative bradycardia. Further studies should be conducted to establish the criteria for a significant ORi reduction.

Remimazolam and serious adverse events: A scoping review

Remimazolam is anticipated to be an interesting anaesthetic and sedative. It combines the pharmacodynamic properties of midazolam with pharmacokinetic properties similar to remifentanil. However, worrisome case reports of anaphylaxis, delayed emergence and re-sedation have emerged recently and necessitate further investigation.PubMed (including MEDLINE) and EMBASE were searched for all studies reporting serious adverse events where remimazolam was administered for sedation or anaesthesia.Thirty-six case reports and 73 trials were identified, involving a total of 6740 patients who received remimazolam. Hypotension was reported in 911 cases, delayed emergence in 68 cases, anaphylaxis in 10 cases and re-sedation in 8 cases. The incidence of hypotension seems to be lower compared with other anaesthetics, even in high-risk patients.Delayed emergence might be related to the metabolism of remimazolam through carboxylesterase 1 (CES1), a tissue esterase predominant in the liver. There is significant interindividual variation, and it is inhibited by flavonoids, fatty acids and alcohol. Individual benzodiazepine sensitivity has also been reported. A higher BMI, older age and low plasma albumin concentration are risk factors for delayed emergence. Anaphylaxis might be related to a non-IgE-mediated effect of the excipient dextran-40 or a partially IgE-mediated reaction to remimazolam itself. Resedation has been reported after flumazenil reversal and is explained by the specific pharmacokinetic properties of flumazenil and remimazolam. Reversal by flumazenil should be reserved for and used carefully in patients with delayed emergence.

VISUAL ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/EJA/A864 .

The safety and efficacy between remimazolam and propofol in intravenous anesthesia of endoscopy operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol.

AIM

This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile.

RESULTS

Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.12, P <0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.73, P =0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47, P =0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01, P =0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: -0.43 to 1.80, P =0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.23, P =0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besilate for sedation in outpatients undergoing impacted third molar extraction: a prospective exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Dental treatments often cause anxiety, fear, and stress in patients. Intravenous sedation is widely used to alleviate these concerns, and various agents are employed for sedation. However, it is important to find safer and more effective sedation agents, considering the adverse effects associated with current agents. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besilate (hereinafter called "remimazolam") and to determine the optimal dosages for sedation in outpatients undergoing dental procedures.

METHODS

Thirty-one outpatients aged 18-65 years scheduled for impacted third molar extraction were included in the study. Remimazolam was administered as a single dose of 0.05 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.35 mg/kg/h, with the infusion rate adjusted to maintain a sedation level at a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score of 2-4. The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy, and the secondary endpoints included induction time, recovery time, time until discharge, remimazolam dose, respiratory and circulatory dynamics, and frequency of adverse events.

RESULTS

The sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy was 100%. The remimazolam induction dose was 0.08 (0.07-0.09) mg/kg, and the anesthesia induction time was 3.2 (2.6-3.9) min. The mean infusion rate of remimazolam during the procedure was 0.40 (0.38-0.42) mg/kg/h. The time from the end of remimazolam administration to awakening was 8.0 (6.7-9.3) min, and the time from the end of remimazolam administration to discharge was 14.0 (12.5-15.5) min. There were no significant respiratory or circulatory effects requiring intervention during sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous intravenous administration of remimazolam can achieve optimal sedation levels without significantly affecting respiratory or circulatory dynamics. The study also provided guidance on the appropriate dosage of remimazolam for achieving moderate sedation during dental procedures. Additionally, the study findings suggest that electroencephalogram monitoring can be a reliable indicator of the level of sedation during dental procedural sedation with remimazolam.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (No. jRCTs061220052) on 30/08/2022.

Effects of remimazolam combined with sufentanil on hemodynamics during anesthetic induction in elderly patients with mild hypertension undergoing orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized controlled trial was performed to observe the effect of remimazolam with sufentanil on hemodynamics during anesthetic induction in elderly patients with mild hypertension undergoing orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs.

METHODS

Sixty elderly patients were randomly assigned to undergo general anesthesia with intravenous injection of either remimazolam besylate (25 mg/vial, batch number 10T11011; Yichang Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yichang, China) at 0.2 mg/kg (Group R, n = 30) or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (Group P, n = 30). Both injections were completed within 15 to 20 s. If the bispectral index value did not reach 40 to 60, then 0.05 mg/kg of remimazolam was added in Group P and 1 mg/kg of propofol was added in Group R. When the BIS value reached 40 to 60, sufentanil was administered at 0.3 to 0.5 µg/kg and cisatracurium was administered at 0.15 to 0.2 mg/kg in both groups. Three minutes later, tracheal intubation and controlled ventilation were performed to maintain the end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure at 4.5 to 5.0 kPa. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO), continuous cardiac index (CI), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and pulse oxygen saturation were recorded before induction (T0), when the eyelash reflex disappeared (T1), immediately after endotracheal intubation (T2), 1 min after endotracheal intubation (T3), and 5 min after endotracheal intubation (T4). The disappearance time of the eyelash reflex, injection pain, hypotension, bradycardia, hiccupping, nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events were observed.

RESULTS

The MAP, HR, CO, and CI at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were significantly higher in Group R than P, while SVR was significantly lower in Group R than P (P < 0.05). In Group P, the MAP, HR, CO, and CI were significantly lower and the SVR was significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, and T4 than at T0 (P < 0.05). Adverse events occurred in 8 (20%) patients in Group R and 22 (73%) in Group P. The total incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in Group R than P (P < 0 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam combined with sufentanil for general anesthesia induction has the advantages of small hemodynamic fluctuations, stable circulation, and few adverse reactions, making it suitable for elderly patients with mild hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300069224, 10/03/2023).

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Changes in the Elderly: Impact on Anesthetics

Anesthesiologists are increasingly required to care for frail elderly patients. A detailed knowledge of the influence of age on the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of the anesthetic drugs is essential for optimal safety and care. For most of the anesthetic drugs, the elderly need lower doses to achieve the same plasma concentrations, and at any given plasma and effect-site concentration, they will have more profound clinical effects than younger patients. Caution is required, with close monitoring of clinical effects and active titration of dose administration to achieve the desired level of effect, ideally following the "start low, go slow" principle.

Effects of Remimazolam and Propofol on Emergence Agitation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Replacement: A Clinical, Randomized, Controlled Study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on emergence agitation (EA) in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement.

Methods

A total of 60 elderly patients undergoing hip replacement were recruited for this prospective, single-center, clinical, randomized, controlled study from February to April 2023. They were randomly assigned to two groups: the remimazolam group (group R) and the propofol group (group P). In group R, remimazolam was administered intravenously during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, In group P, propofol was used during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The incidence of EA was recorded as the primary indicator. Secondary indicators included heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) values at the following moments: 5 min prior to anesthetic induction (T0), 1 min following induction (T1), 5 min after the laryngeal mask was inserted (T2), the beginning of surgery (T3), the moment the laryngeal mask was removed (T4), and the overall incidence of postoperative adverse events (bleeding or splitting of the surgical incision, removal of the intravenous infusion needle, falling off the bed, hypoxemia, and hypertension).

Results

The incidence of EA was significantly lower in group R than in group P (10% vs 33%, P < 0.05). At T1, T2, and T3, the HR and MAP values of group R were higher than those of group P (P < 0.05). The overall incidence of postoperative adverse events was significantly lower in group R than in group P (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam further reduced the incidence of emergence agitation when compared to propofol during geriatric hip replacement. Moreover, it has a minor hemodynamic effect and lower the incidence of postoperative adverse events.

Remimazolam versus propofol in combination with esketamine for surgical abortion: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

Remimazolam is a new benzodiazepine with a short half-life, good efficacy, and safety profiles in general anesthesia. Combining esketamine with propofol (P + E) could reduce propofol consumption and injection pain. It is, however, unclear if a low dose of remimazolam co-administrated with esketamine (R + E) is comparable to the increasingly used P + E for surgical abortion with general anesthetic. We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of R + E and P + E. Two hundred patients scheduled for a surgical abortion were randomized to receive remimazolam 0.3 mg/kg plus esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (R + E), and propofol 2 mg/kg plus esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (P + E). Sedative effectiveness was evaluated by measuring the time to lose consciousness (LOC), recovery time, and successful sedation rate. Safety was assessed by hemodynamics and adverse events during and postoperation. The time to LOC and recovery time in R + E was 5 s shorter and 1 min longer than that in P + E, respectively (both p < 0.001). Success sedation rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.73). Bradycardia incidence and injection site pain were less frequent in the R + E group than that in the P + E group. More rash was observed in the R + E group compared with the P + E group (32% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), but all were mild (only chest rash) and resolved subsequently. Low dose of remimazolam when combined with esketamine has favorable profiles with rapid onset and recovery, but mild hemodynamic side effects and adverse events. It can be used as an alternative for surgical abortion with general anesthetic.

Remimazolam's Effects on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Are Similar to Those of Propofol after Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine that prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), is more effective than volatile anesthetics, and was recently approved for use in Japan. (2) Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial study aimed to compare the efficacy of remimazolam and propofol as general anesthetics in terms of the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic gynecological surgery (UMIN000046237). High-risk female patients who underwent general anesthesia with either remimazolam or propofol for the maintenance of anesthesia were enrolled. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the two groups (i.e., REM versus PROP) 2 h and 24 h after surgery. The incidence of vomiting without nausea, rescue antiemetic use, and the severity of nausea were also evaluated. (3) Results: No significant differences in PONV were identified between the REM and PROP groups at 2 h or 24 h. Furthermore, no differences were observed in any of the measured parameters, and no adverse events were reported. (4) Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that remimazolam may be as effective as propofol in preventing PONV; however, further investigation is necessary to identify possible differences between these two agents.

Effects of Remimazolam Anesthesia with Two Induction Doses on Hemodynamics and Recovery Profile in Older Patients: Comparison with Propofol Anesthesia

Remimazolam has advantages such as hemodynamic stability and rapid onset. We investigated the effects of induction doses on hemodynamics and recovery profiles for remimazolam compared to propofol in older patients. Sixty-nine patients aged >65 years were randomly assigned to either the propofol anesthesia group (P group) or the remimazolam anesthesia group with an induction dose of 6 mg/kg/h (R6 group) or 12 mg/kg/h (R12 group), followed by 1 mg/kg/h. P group was anesthetized with 4 µg/mL of propofol effect-site concentration (Ce) with target-control infusion, followed by 2.5-3 µg/mL of Ce. The primary outcome was the difference between the baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the lowest MAP during anesthesia (ΔMAP). ΔMAP was comparable between the P, R6, and R12 groups (43.8 ± 13.8 mmHg, 39.2 ± 14.3 mmHg, and 39.2 ± 13.5 mmHg, p = 0.443). However, the frequencies of vasoactive drug use were 54.5%, 17.4%, and 30.4% (p = 0.029), and the median doses of ephedrine 3 (0-6) mg, 0 (0-0) mg, and 0 (0-0) mg (p = 0.034), which were significantly different. This study showed remimazolam anesthesia with an induction dose of 6 mg/kg/h, rather than 12 mg/kg/h, could reduce the requirement for vasoactive drugs compared to propofol anesthesia.

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosylate combined with propofol in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Hypotension is the most common adverse event under propofol-mediated sedation and is possible to cause varying degrees of damage to patients. Whereas remimazolam has a poorer sedative effect than propofol.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the advantages of the combination of remimazolam tosylate and propofol.

METHODS

304 patients were divided into the remimazolam tosylate group (RT group), the propofol group (P group), and the remimazolam tosylate plus propofol group(R+T group). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes included the results of sedation and recovery. The safety results mainly include the incidence of Hypotension, adverse respiratory events, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hiccup, cough, body movement and bradycardia.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was 56.7% in the P group, 12.6% in the RT group, and 31.3% in the R+P group, three groups of pairwise comparisons showed statistical differences, with P< 0.001. The incidence of body movement was significantly higher in the RT group (26.1%) than in the P group (10.3%) and the R+P group (12.5%), P = 0.004. The endoscopist satisfaction was higher in the P (3.87±0.44) and R+P (3.95±0.22)groups than in the RT(3.53±0.84) group. The incidence of adverse events, in descending order, was P group, RT group, and R+P group (93.8%vs.61.3%vs.42.7%).

CONCLUSION

Co-administration had fewer adverse events than propofol monotherapy, also had a better sedative effect and higher endoscopist satisfaction than remimazolam monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: NCT05429086.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of esketamine and propofol in procedural sedation/analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.

CONCLUSIONS

Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.

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

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.

Comparison of the effects of remimazolam tosylate and propofol on postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common cognitive disturbance in elderly individuals that is characterised by acute and fluctuating impairments in attention and awareness. Remimazolam tosylate is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, and there is limited evidence of its correlation with the incidence of early POD. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of POD after anaesthesia induction and maintenance with remimazolam tosylate or propofol in elderly patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre, randomised controlled trial. 636 elderly patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery will be enrolled and randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with either remimazolam tosylate or propofol. The primary outcome is the incidence of POD within 5 days after surgery. Delirium will be assessed twice daily by the 3 min Diagnostic Interview for the Confusion Assessment Method or the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (ICU) for ICU patients. Secondary outcomes are the onset and duration of delirium, cognitive function at discharge and within 1-year postoperatively, postoperative analgesia within 5 days, chronic pain at 3 months, quality of recovery and postoperative inflammatory biomarker levels.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (approval No. 22/520-3722). Written informed consent will be obtained from each patient before enrolment. The results of this trial will be presented at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300067368.

Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between Remimazolam and Propofol in Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a recently approved, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine. However, few studies have investigated remimazolam in relation to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on PONV in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

Patients (n = 206) aged 19-65 years who were scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomized into two groups, the remimazolam (R) and propofol group (P). In the R group (n = 94), remimazolam was used to induce anesthesia at 12 mg/kg/h and to maintain anesthesia at 1-2 mg/kg/h. In the P group (n = 95), anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol (target effect-site concentration: 3-5 µg/ml). In both groups, remifentanil was administered at a target effect-site concentration of 2.5-4 ng/ml. The primary outcome was the overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, severity of postoperative pain, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 11.7% and 10.5% in the R group and P group, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the severity of nausea (P > 0.05). Ten patients in the R group and ten patients in the P group required rescue antiemetics during the first 24 h after surgery (P = 0.98). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of postoperative pain score, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, remimazolam did not increase the incidence and severity of PONV compared with propofol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0006965, Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea. Registration date: 26/01/2022.

Advantages of Sedation With Remimazolam Compared to Midazolam for the Removal of Impacted Tooth in Patients With Dental Anxiety

PURPOSE

Although midazolam is commonly used to sedate patients with dental anxiety, it has shortcomings that reduce the satisfaction of patients and doctors. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the advantages of remimazolam as a sedative.

METHODS

The study design was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients with dental anxiety and who were to undergo impacted tooth removal were randomized into remimazolam and midazolam groups. They were sedated with remimazolam or midazolam prior to receiving nerve blocker. The predictor variable was the type of sedative, while the primary outcome variables were the onset time, awakening time, recovery time, and postoperative side effects. Secondary outcome variables were the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale score before and after surgery, patient satisfaction and comfort levels scores, and doctor satisfaction level scores. Other variables included the patient demographics and the operation time. Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, and two-way repeated measurement ANOVA test (SPSS Version 25.0).

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were included in this study, with 42 randomized to the remimazolam group and 41 to the midazolam group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic features and operation time. Patients in the remimazolam group had significantly shorter onset time, awakening time, and recovery time compared to those in the midazolam group (each P < .001). Postoperative side effects were more frequent in the midazolam group (P < .001). Following surgery, the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale scores in both groups were significantly lower than prior to surgery (P < .001). Satisfaction levels scores for the patients and doctor were higher in the remimazolam group than in the midazolam group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of remimazolam results in faster onset, more rapid recovery, and lower incidence of postoperative side effects compared to midazolam, leading to improved satisfaction for patients and doctors. Remimazolam therefore appears to have several advantages over midazolam for the sedation of patients with dental anxiety associated with the removal of impacted teeth.

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Etomidate on Hemodynamics in Cardiac Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new ultrashort-acting γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABA_A) agonist, with the characteristics of rapid onset and offset, minimal cardiorespiratory depression. Currently, few studies have compared the effect of RT and etomidate on hemodynamics during anesthesia induction. Here, we aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of different doses of RT and etomidate for anesthesia induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgeries.

Methods

Patients were recruited from January to September 2022 in this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. A total of 117 patients undergoing selective valve replacement surgery were randomly divided into low-dose RT (0.2 mg/kg) group (group LR), high-dose RT (0.3 mg/kg) group (group HR), or etomidate (1.5 mg/kg) group (group E), respectively. The primary outcome was hemodynamic fluctuations (mean arterial pressure fluctuation value [∆MAP]; heart rate fluctuation value [∆HR]) during anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse drug reactions (injection pain and myoclonus) and adverse cardiovascular events, vital signs at different time points and the cumulative doses of vasoactive drugs.

Results

The hemodynamic fluctuations (∆MAP) in group LR and group E were significantly lower than that in group HR. In addition, the incidence of hypotension and the cumulative norepinephrine doses in group E and group LR were also significantly lower than that in group HR. Furthermore, the incidence of injection pain and myoclonus in group LR and group HR were less frequently recorded compared with group E. There were no significant differences in terms of ∆HR, tachycardia, hypertension, severe bradycardia, vital signs at different time points, lactic acid and blood glucose between both groups.

Conclusion

Compared with etomidate, low-dose RT (0.2mg/kg) can not only provide stable hemodynamic parameters but also cause fewer adverse reactions when used for anesthesia induction in patients with cardiac disease.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A bi-center, prospective, randomized controlled study

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia during sedation in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients in the remimazolam group received an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 2.5 mg of remimazolam tosilate, whereas patients in the propofol group received an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients received ASA standard monitoring (heart-rate, non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oxygen saturation) during the entire examination process. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate hypoxemia (defined as 85%≤ SpO₂< 90%, >15s) during the gastrointestinal endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of mild hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂ 90%-94%) and severe hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂< 85%, >15s), the lowest pulse oxygen saturation, airway maneuvers used to correct hypoxemia, patient's hemodynamic as well as other adverse events. Results: 107 elderly patients (67.6 ± 5.7 years old) in the remimazolam group and 109 elderly patients (67.5 ± 4.9 years old) in the propofol group were analyzed. The incidence of moderate hypoxemia was 2.8% in the remimazolam group and 17.4% in the propofol group (relative risk [RR] = 0.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049 to 0.528; p < 0.001). The frequency of mild hypoxemia was less in the remimazolam group, but not statistically significant (9.3% vs. 14.7%; RR = 0.637; 95% CI, 0.303 to 1.339; p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoxemia between the two groups (4.7% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.267 to 2.698; p = 0.781). The median lowest SpO₂ during the examination was 98% (IQR, 96.0%-99.0%) in patients in the remimazolam group, which was significantly higher than in patients in the propofol group (96%, IQR, 92.0%-99.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group received more drug supplementation during endoscopy than patients in the propofol group (p = 0.014). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (2.8% vs. 12.8%; RR = 0.218; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.738; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and prolonged sedation. Conclusion: This study explored the safety of remimazolam compared with propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Despite the increased supplemental doses during sedation, remimazolam improved risk of moderate hypoxemia (i.e., 85%≤ SpO₂ < 90%) and hypotension in elderly patients.

Effects of opioid-free propofol or remimazolam balanced anesthesia on hypoxemia incidence in patients with obesity during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized clinical trial

There are presently no consensuses on the optimal sedation strategy for obese patients during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aim to explore the effects of opioid-free propofol or remimazolam balanced anesthesia on hypoxemia incidence in patients with obesity. A total of 264 patients were randomized to remimazolam + esketamine group (group R) or propofol + esketamine group (group P). Anesthesia in group P was administrated by propofol, esketamine and in group R by remimazolam, esketamine. The primary outcome was incidence of hypoxemia. Secondary outcomes were the time to loss of consciousness (LoC) and to recovery and the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions. We found the incidence of mild hypoxemia in group R was similar to that in group P (14.2% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.396). The incidence of severe hypoxemia in group R was significantly lower than Group P (4.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.019). The time to LoC in group R was longer than group P [Median (interquartile range, IQR): 53 s (45 to 61) vs. 50 s (42 to 54), p = 0.001]. The time to recovery from anesthesia in group R was less than group P [Median (IQR): 48 min (41 to 58) vs. 55.5 min (46 to 67), p<0.001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05 for all). We concluded that compared with propofol combined with esketamine, remimazolam combined with esketamine can reduce the incidence of severe hypoxemia during gastrointestinal endoscopy in obese patients. Clinical Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn, Identifier: ChiCTR2200065575.

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.

Effect of Remimazolam Tosilate on Respiratory Depression in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Multicentered, Prospective, and Randomized Study

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new type of γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABA_A) receptor agonist, having the possibility to be an ideal sedative drug for procedural sedation. At present, there are few studies on the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients. We aimed to evaluate the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial recruited patients from eight centers in China between May 2022 and July 2022. A total of 346 elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly divided into RT group (0.2 mg/kg) or propofol group (1.5 mg/kg), respectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory depression. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of sedative-related adverse events, the success rate of sedation, time to fully alert, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), time to ready for discharge, as well as the the patients, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction.

Results

The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly reduced in the RT group compared with the propofol group (9.8% vs 17.9%, P=0.042). The time of LOC and fully alert in the RT group were longer than that in the propofol group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypotention (50.9% vs 32.4%, P=0.001) and hypotension requiring treatment (5.8% vs 1.7%, P=0.031) were significantly higher in the propofol group than that in the RT group. The incidence and severity of injection pain were more frequently recorded in the propofol group than that in the RT group (40.5% vs 12.1%, P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation success rates, time to ready for discharge, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction and other sedative-related adverse events.

Conclusion

RT may be a suitable alternative sedative agent for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy due to its safety profile.

Remimazolam Tosylate Combined with Low-Dose Propofol Improves Sedation and Safety in Hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol is widely used for sedation of hysteroscopy. It can cause injection pain, respiratory depression, and hypotension. Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine. Clinical practice has found that the use of remimazolam alone often leads to body movement during hysteroscopy, which decreases the safety and comfort. Here this study is to investigate whether remimazolam combined with low-dose propofol can improve the sedation effect and safety of hysteroscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled trial, women (18 to 60 years) undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to receive propofol (Group P), remimazolam tosylate (Group R), or remimazolam tosylate plus propofol (Group RP). Intraoperative sedation depth was kept at the bispectral index (BIS) value of 40-60. 6 μg/kg alfentanil was used for analgesic before sedation. Intraoperative low pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), body movement, injection pain, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and postoperative recovery time, dizziness, nausea and vomiting were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

From February to July 2022, 193 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to group P (n=64), group R (n=64), or group RP (n=65). There was no significant inter-group difference of the intraoperative BIS values. The incidence of low SpO2, injection pain, hypotension, and postoperative dizziness in group RP were less than that in group P, and had no significant difference from group R. The incidence of body movement in group RP was less than that in group R, and had no significant difference from group P. Postoperative recovery time of group RP was shorter than that of the other two groups. No significant inter-group difference in bradycardia, nausea and vomiting was observed.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam tosylate combined with low dose of propofol improved sedation and safety in hysteroscopy, and may be a more ideal sedative method for hysteroscopy.

Remimazolam: An Updated Review of a New Sedative and Anaesthetic

Remimazolam (CNS7056) is a novel benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation; it has an ultra-short duration of action and was recently approved for use in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. It acts on γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors and is rapidly converted into an inactive metabolite by tissue esterase enzymes. Remimazolam has been successfully used in endoscopic inspection or surgery and general anaesthesia induction and maintenance with fast and predictable onset and recovery times, high procedure success rates, and minor respiratory and hemodynamic fluctuations and without serious drug-related adverse reactions. If needed, the effects of remimazolam can be reversed by flumazenil, which allows prompt termination of sedation. Although remimazolam has great potential for sedation in patients admitted to intensive care units, future studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in patients requiring sedation for a long period, and numerous studies are warranted to explore the optimal dose in different application scenarios. The review aimed to provide an introduction to the process of remimazolam synthesis and its current clinical uses and future clinical developments.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia: a randomized double-blind controlled study

Purpose

To observe the effect of different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia.

Methods

One hundred ninety-two patients were selected for gynaecological day surgery and randomly divided into three groups: droperidol group (DD group), tropisetron group (DT group) and control group (DC group). Flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg and dexamethasone 5 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia, and 2 min later droperidol 1 mg was given intravenously to the DD group, tropisetron 5 mg to the DT group and saline (5 ml) to the DC group. Induction of anesthesia: remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h was continuously infused until sleep, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg and alfentanil 20ug/kg were slowly pushed, 3 min later intubation was performed to control breathing. Maintenance of anesthesia: 40ug/kg/h of alfentanil, 1 mg/kg/h of remimazolam continuous infusion. After awakening and extubation, the patient was transferred to the PACU. PONV were recorded in the PACU and an electronic questionnaire was pushed 24 h after surgery.

Results

The incidence of PONV within the PACU was significantly lower in the DD (14.5%)and DT(26.7%) groups than in the DC(50%) group (p < 0.01), there was no significantly difference between the DT and DD groups. There were no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery between the three groups(DD:DT:DC = 44.5%:45.1%:63.8%,p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Droperidol or tropisetron combined with dexamethasone is superior to dexamethasone alone for the prevention of PONV in the PACU after remimazolam combined with alfentanil anesthesia, with no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery.