Moderate sedation by total intravenous remimazolam-alfentanil vs. propofol-alfentanil for third molar extraction: A prospective randomized controlled trial

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.

Virtual reality in managing dental pain and anxiety: a comprehensive review

Objectives

This study aimed to identify, analyze, and summarize the clinical efficacy of virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy for oral treatment in different hospital settings in contrast to medical interventions that induce anxiety and pain. Furthermore, this review aimed to determine the implications for research and clinical practice of VR distraction therapy.

Data

This review investigated the clinical efficacy of VR in the oral treatment of procedural pain or anxiety. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted. A narrative synthesis of the collected data was performed.

Sources

Literature studies from six electronic databases were searched for a comprehensive review, namely, the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science.

Study selection

One thousand five hundred twenty-two patients aged between 0 and 60 years who used VR during dental treatment were included in this review. Among these studies, 8 and 14 studies comprised adult and pediatric patients.

Conclusion

Overall, the reviewed studies underscore the efficacy of VR to mitigate pain and anxiety in the context of dental treatment. VR is an innovative pain and anxiety management approach that facilitates dental treatment patients to immerse themselves in a virtual world while using distractions to reduce pain and anxiety.

Clinical significance

VR is an effective and novel non-pharmacological method of behavioral management that contributes to improving medication safety for dental patients. VR as a distractive approach can reduce the fear associated with medical interventions and prevent severe pain sensitivity, anxiety, and medical avoidance among adults and children.

Remimazolam Pilot for Office-Based Dental Sedation: Adverse Events, Awareness and Outcomes

In recent years, remimazolam has gained approval for use in adult procedural sedation in both the United Kingdom and the United States, potentially offering an alternative to conventional sedatives like propofol and midazolam for procedural sedation. However, there is a limited body of literature that systematically reviews the outcomes of a remimazolam-alfentanil combination protocol for routine office-based dental procedures. The primary objective of this pilot study was to assess the occurrence of significant adverse events associated with the use of a remimazolam-alfentanil sedation protocol for adult dental procedures. Secondary outcomes included evaluating physiological responses, sedation effectiveness, patient and clinician satisfaction and the incidence of intraprocedural awareness. Notably, no significant adverse events were reported among the 25 adult subjects who received remimazolam and alfentanil, and all dental procedures were successfully completed. Patients and clinicians expressed high levels of satisfaction, and patients did not report any distressing memories associated with the dental procedure. These findings suggest that in a limited cohort, the remimazolam-alfentanil regimen appears to be well tolerated and effective for office-based dental procedures in adult patients, with a low risk of adverse events, acceptable hemodynamic effects, rapid onset and recovery and minimal intraoperative awareness. This study provides valuable insights into the potential use of the remimazolam-alfentanil combination in dental sedation practice.

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 .

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.

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.

Efficacy of continuous intravenous remimazolam versus midazolam in the extraction of impacted wisdom teeth: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Benzodiazepines such as midazolam are widely used to moderately sedate patients during impacted wisdom tooth extraction to reduce anxiety in outpatient surgery. This present protocol was designed to determine whether continuous intravenous remimazolam, a new ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, produces superior postoperative recovery quality to that of midazolam in patients undergoing extraction of impacted wisdom teeth.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing Anzhen Hospital and Beijing Shijitan Hospital in China. Approximately 150 participants undergoing extraction of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth will be randomly allocated to two groups (remimazolam and midazolam). The participants will be administered standard interventions to ensure they achieve a sedation level of III on the Ramsay sedation scale during the treatment. Preoperative and anaesthesia management and surgical techniques will be standardised for all participants. The primary outcome is recovery time for complete alertness and the secondary outcomes are anterograde amnesia during and after surgery, and interruption during operation for poor compliance or safety concerns.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (approval number: ZS-3142), Beijing Anzhen Hospital (approval number: KS2022082) and Beijing Shijitan Hospital (approval number: 2023-4).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05350085.

Feasibility and Safety of Remazolam versus Propofol When Inserting Laryngeal Masks Without Muscle Relaxants During Hysteroscopy

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remazolam compared with propofol in patients who underwent laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents during hysteroscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

A total of 72 patients undergoing hysteroscopy with LMA insertion were assigned to two groups. The patients in the remazolam group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 0.3 mg/kg remazolam and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil, whereas the patients in the propofol group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 2.0 mg/kg propofol and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil for insertion of the LMA. The primary endpoint was the summed score of the insertion conditions. The secondary endpoints included hemodynamics, the duration of induction, the duration of insertion, tidal volume, plateau pressure and adverse events.

Results

No difference was identified between the propofol group and remazolam group in the median summed score [18.0 (18.0, 18.0), 18.0 (17.0, 18.0), respectively, P > 0.05]. The induction duration was significantly longer (P < 0.05) in the remazolam group than propofol group. The cost of dopamine (P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the remazolam group compared with the patients in the propofol group, while the plateau pressure (P < 0.05) and the incidence of transient mild laryngospasm (P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the remazolam group. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of heart rate, tidal volume, injection pain or hiccups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Remazolam provided similar insertion conditions and better hemodynamic stability than propofol during LMA insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents. However, a higher incidence of transient mild laryngospasm was found in the remazolam group, which should be considered.