Sedative effect of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in colonoscopic polypectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

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.

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopic examination: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for hysteroscopic examination, to determine the optimal dose of remimazolam combined with alfentanil for painless hysteroscopy, and to calculate its median effective dose (ED50).

METHODS

Step 1: A total of 208 patients undergoing hysteroscopic examination were prospectively included in this study. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam (group A), 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate (group B), 0.3 mg/kg remimazolam (group C), and 2 mg/kg propofol (group D), with 52 patients in each group. One minute after losing consciousness, patients received an intravenous injection of alfentanil at 5 µg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of alfentanil at 0.5 µg/kg/min. If patients showed frowning, movement, or MOAA/S > 1, sedatives were added: 0.05 mg/kg/dose of remimazolam for groups A, B, and C, and 0.5 mg/kg/dose of propofol for group D. Step 2: Dixon's up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil during hysteroscopic examination.

MAIN RESULTS

The sedation success rates of the remimazolam groups were 88.46%, 94.23%, and 98.08%, respectively, compared to 96.15% in the propofol group, with no significant difference (P = .175). MAP in groups A and B was higher than in group D (P < .05), and significantly higher in group C than in group D (P = .0016). SpO2 values in groups A, B, and C were higher than in group D at T2 to T3 (P < .001). HR in groups A, B, and C was significantly higher than in group D (P < .001). The ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopy was 0.244 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.195-0.22) and ED95 was 0.282 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.261-1.619).

CONCLUSION

In hysteroscopy, the sedative effect of remimazolam is like that of propofol, with 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam showing better safety and efficacy, and less impact on the respiratory and circulatory systems. Additionally, under the influence of alfentanil, the ED50 of remimazolam in hysteroscopy is 0.244 mg/kg, with no severe adverse reactions observed.

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias).

RESULTS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

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.

Propofol combined with alfentanil for general anesthesia in vocal cord polypectomy under suspension laryngoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effect of propofol combined with alfentanil in vocal cord polypectomy under suspension laryngoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 308 patients undergoing vocal cord polypectomy under suspension laryngoscopy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were included in this prospective study, and the patients were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group. Patients in the observation group received alfentanil combined with propofol, while those in the control group were anesthetized with sufentanil combined with propofol. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), real portfolio project (RPP), and Steward postanesthetic recovery scores were compared between the two groups before anesthesia induction (T0), at intubation (T1), 5 min after intubation (T2), at the time of placing suspension laryngoscopy (T3), 1 min after placing the suspension laryngoscopy (T4), 1 min after extraction of support laryngoscope (T5), and 1 min after extubation (T6). In addition, the propofol dosage and peripheral plasma levels of epinephrine (E) and norepinephrine (NE) were also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The MAP, HR, and RPP of the patients in the observation group were higher than those in the control group at T1-T5 (all P<0.05), while there was no statistical difference at T0 and T6 (all P>0.05). The Steward postanesthetic recovery scores and the propofol dosage in the observation group were lower than those in the control group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the E and NE levels between the two groups after surgery (P<0.001). There was also an interaction effect between the groups and among the time points (both P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Alfentanil can reduce the fluctuation of hemodynamics during vocal cord polypectomy under suspension laryngoscopy, and therefore improve anesthesia effect. Simultaneously, the usage of propofol was reduced, as well as the stress levels.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ChiCTR2100054186.

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam for general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

There is insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in elderly patients. Therefore, this study evaluated the differences in the anesthesia characteristics and perioperative hemodynamic profiles of elderly patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam or propofol.

Methods

Eighty-four patients aged >65 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I-III were randomly assigned to Group R (receiving remimazolam, n = 42) or Group P (receiving propofol, n = 42). In Group R, remimazolam was initiated at a rate of 6 mg/kg/h until loss of consciousness (LOC) was achieved and maintained at 1 mg/kg/h subsequently. In Group P, 1.0-1.5 mg/kg of propofol was injected for 1 min and maintained at 100 μg/kg/min subsequently. The maintenance infusion rate was adjusted to maintain an appropriate depth of anesthesia until the end of the surgery. The primary outcome was the time to LOC. The depth of anesthesia scores and hemodynamic profiles were recorded perioperatively.

Results

The time to LOC was significantly longer in Group R (120 s) than in Group P (60 s) (p < 0.001). The time to eye-opening (Group R, 10 min; Group P, 10 min; p = 0.056), the incidence of maintenance of hemodynamic changes within 20% of the peri-anesthetic values, and treatments for hemodynamic instability did not differ significantly between the groups. The depth of anesthesia scores did not differ significantly between the groups; however, the scores were higher in Group R than those in Group P before endotracheal intubation. The hemodynamic parameters did not differ significantly at any time point. The time to extubation was longer in Group R (12 min) than that in Group P (10 min) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the time to discharge from the operating room was significantly longer in Group R (15 min) compared to Group P (12 min) (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Remimazolam does not exhibit a comparable effect to propofol in terms of anesthesia induction and recovery. However, it demonstrates a similar effect to propofol regarding intraoperative anesthesia depth and hemodynamic profile in elderly patients undergoing remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia.

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 .

Comparison of anesthetic effects of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing ERCP: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTS

Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often old and poor in physical fitness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anesthetic effect of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 137 patients, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into three groups. Group A were given 0.15 μg/kg/min of alfentanil in maintenance stage, Group B were given 0.25 μg/kg/min and Group C were given 0.35 μg/kg/min. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) of the patients at each time point including the entry into the operation room (T0), at the beginning of surgery(T1), 10 min after surgery(T2), 20 min after surgery(T3), 30 min after surgery(T4),endoscopy withdrawal (T5) were recorded. Adverse events(including respiratory depression, body movement and hypoxemia),the dosage of ciprofol, the time of operation time and awakening were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group A, MAP and HR in Group B and Group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with group B, MAP and HR in group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with Group A and Group C,the number of adverse reactions of Group B was decreased(P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in surgical time among the three groups(P > 0.05),but a statistically significant difference in recovery time (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The adverse events of alfentanil 0.25μg/kg/min combined with ciprofol were low, and the anesthetic effect was the best.

Comparative analysis of the effect of electromyogram to bispectral index and 95% spectral edge frequency under remimazolam and propofol anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background

Bispectral index (BIS), an index used to monitor the depth of anesthesia, can be interfered with by the electromyogram (EMG) signal. The 95% spectral edge frequency (SEF95) also can reflect the sedation depth. Remimazolam in monitored anesthesia care results in higher BIS values than propofol, though in the same sedation level assessed by Modified Observers Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S). Our study aims to illustrate whether EMG is involved in remimazolam causing higher BIS value than propofol preliminarily and to explore the correlations among BIS, EMG, and SEF95 under propofol and remimazolam anesthesia.

Patients and methods

Twenty-eight patients were randomly divided into propofol (P) and remimazolam (RM) groups. Patients in the two groups received alfentanil 10 μg/kg, followed by propofol 2 mg/kg and remimazolam 0.15 mg/kg. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were routinely monitored. The BIS, EMG, and SEF95 were obtained through BIS VISTATM. The primary outcomes were BIS, EMG, and the correlation between BIS and EMG in both groups. Other outcomes were SEF95, the correlation between BIS and SEF95, and the correlation between EMG and SEF95. And all the statistical and comparative analysis between these signals was conducted with SPSS 26.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.

Results

BIS values, EMG, and SEF95 were significantly higher in the RM group than in the P group (all p < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between BIS and EMG in the RM group (r = 0.416). Nevertheless, the BIS in the P group showed a weak negative correlation with EMG (r = -0.219). Both P (r = 0.787) and RM group (r = 0.559) had a reasonably significant correlation coefficient between BIS and SEF95. SEF95 almost did not correlate with EMG in the RM group (r = 0.101).

Conclusion

Bispectral index can be interfered with high EMG intensity under remimazolam anesthesia. However, EMG can hardly affect the accuracy of BIS under propofol anesthesia due to low EMG intensity and a weak negative correlation between EMG and BIS. Moreover, SEF95 may have a great application prospect in predicting the sedation condition of remimazolam.

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 effectiveness of the combination of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in gastroscopy: a multicenter, randomized controlled, single-blind clinical trial

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptors agonist. However, its optimal use mode and dosage still remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of RT and propofol in gastroscopy. This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study. All eligible 256 patients were randomized into the following 3 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (Group P), RT (Group R) or the combination of RT and propofol (Group RP). The primary efficacy endpoints were: body movement score; satisfaction of gastroscopy doctors; success rate of sedation and effects on sleep status. Sedation induction time, time to be fully alert and adverse events were also recorded. The probability of complete immobility was lower in group R (33.73%) than in group P (86.67%) and RP (83.13%). The rate of doctors' satisfaction was much lower in group R (28.92%) than in group P (77.78%) and RP (72.29%). The success rate of sedation and sleep outcome score has no difference in the three groups. The time to adequate sedation was longer in group RP (77.27 ± 18.63 s) than in group P (64.47 ± 24.36 s), but much shorter than that in group R (102.84 ± 46.43s). The time to be fully alert was shorter in group R (6.30 ± 1.52 min) and RP (6.54 ± 1.13 min) than in group P (7.87 ± 1.08 min). The proportion of sedative hypotension was significantly higher in group P (41.11%) than in group R (1.20%) and group RP (3.61%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of respiratory depression was much higher in group P (17.78%) than in group R (no patient) and group RP (1.2%). The incidence of adverse events was lower in groups R (4.82%) and RP (9.64%) than in group P (31.11%). The combination of RT and propofol takes effect quickly, makes patients alert quickly, provides a sufficient depth of sedation, reduces body movement, does not inhibit circulation and respiratory function, does not affect sleep, and is the preferred mode for gastroscopy doctors and anesthesiologists.