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

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 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.