Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Anesthetic Management With Remimazolam Besylate and Flumazenil Versus Propofol During Awake Craniotomy Following an Asleep-awake-asleep Method

BACKGROUND

Awake craniotomy is performed to resect brain tumors in eloquent brain areas to maximize tumor reduction and minimize neurological damage. Evidence suggests that intraoperative anesthetic management of awake craniotomy with remimazolam is safe. We compared the time to arousal and efficacy of anesthetic management with remimazolam and propofol during awake craniotomy.

METHODS

In a single-institution randomized, prospective study, patients who underwent elective awake craniotomy were randomized to receive remimazolam and reversal with flumazenil (group R) or propofol (group P). The primary end point was time to awaken. Secondary end points were time to loss of consciousness during induction of anesthesia, the frequency of intraoperative complications (pain, hypertension, seizures, nausea, vomiting, and delayed arousal), and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intraoperative task performance was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) score.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were recruited, of which 52 (26 in each group) were available for the efficacy analysis. Patients in group R had faster mean (±SD) arousal times than those in the P group (890.8±239.8 vs. 1075.4±317.5 s; P=0.013)and higher and more reliable intraoperative task performance (NRS score 8.81±1.50 vs. 7.69±2.36; P=0.043). There were no significant intraoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, remimazolam was associated with more rapid loss of consciousness and, after administration of flumazenil, with faster arousal times and improved intraoperative task performance.

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.

Effect of converting from propofol to remimazolam with flumazenil reversal on recovery from anesthesia in outpatients with mental disabilities: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia is often necessary for dental treatment of outpatients with mental disabilities. Rapid recovery and effective management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are critical for outpatients. This study aimed to investigate the effect of transitioning from propofol to remimazolam with flumazenil reversal administered toward the end of surgery during propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on recovery.

METHODS

Adults with mental disabilities scheduled to undergo dental treatment were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-based TIVA (Group P) or propofol-remimazolam-based TIVA with flumazenil reversal (Group PR). Propofol was replaced with remimazolam 1 h before the end of surgery in Group PR; moreover, 0.5 mg of flumazenil was administered after the neuromuscular blockade reversal agent. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The secondary outcomes included time to eye-opening, time to extubation, occurrence of PONV, and quality of recovery.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included in this study. The duration of stay in the PACU in Group PR was significantly shorter than that in Group P (mean difference, 8.7 min; confidence interval [95% CI], 3.3-14.2; P = 0.002). Group PR exhibited a shorter time to eye opening (mean difference, 5.4 min; 95% CI, 3.3-8.1; P < 0.001) and time to extubation (mean difference, 5.5 min; 95% CI, 3.6-7.9; P < 0.001) than Group P. Neither group required the administration of rescue analgesics, and the incidence of PONV was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning from propofol to remimazolam 1 h before the end of surgery followed by flumazenil reversal reduced the duration of stay in the PACU and the time to eye opening and extubation without affecting the incidence of PONV and quality of recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0007794), Clinical trial first registration date: 12/10/2022.

Comparison of recovery profiles between total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol or remimazolam reversed with flumazenil in patients undergoing breast surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam, a short acting benzodiazepine, is being used for general anaesthesia. The results of studies comparing recovery after propofol with that of remimazolam are inconsistent. Given that flumazenil reverses the sedative effects of remimazolam, we hypothesised that it would speed up recovery from remimazolam general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this trial was to compare the speed of recovery from general anaesthesia between propofol and remimazolam reversed with flumazenil in patients undergoing minimally invasive breast surgery.

DESIGN

Randomised, single-centre, double-blind controlled trial.

SETTING

A tertiary teaching hospital in South Korea from August 2022 to December 2022.

PATIENTS

Adult patients (≥19 years of age) about to undergo general anaesthesia for scheduled breast cancer surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to either the propofol or the remimazolam/flumazenil group. The emergence process was monitored by only one anaesthesiologist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the time to eye opening to command during recovery from the general anaesthesia. Time to removal of the supraglottic airway (SGA) time to discharge, and the Riker sedation agitation scale (SAS) score (1 to 4) during emergence were compared as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The remimazolam group had a significantly shorter mean time to eye opening than the propofol group [127 ± 51 vs. 314 ± 140 s; mean difference 187 s (95% confidence interval (CI), 133 to 241 s; P  < 0.001]. The remimazolam group also had shorter times to SGA removal [169 ± 51 vs. 366 ± 149 s; mean difference 198 s (95% CI, 140 to 255 s); P  < 0.001] and time to discharge from the operating room [243 ± 55 vs. 449 ± 159 s; mean difference 206 s (95% CI, 145 to 267 s); P  < 0.001]. The SAS scores during emergence also differed significantly, with 1 patient in the propofol group and 25 in the remimazolam group attaining scores of 4 ( P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Administration of remimazolam with flumazenil may be a promising option for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, providing faster recovery and better SAS scores than propofol during emergence from general anaesthesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05435911).

Remimazolam-based anesthesia with flumazenil allows faster emergence than propofol-based anesthesia in older patients undergoing spinal surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine that can be antagonized by flumazenil. This study aimed to determine whether remimazolam-based anesthesia with flumazenil provides a more rapid emergence than propofol-based anesthesia in older patients undergoing spinal surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Forty-four patients > 75 years old who had undergone spinal surgery were enrolled in this study. They were randomly assigned to the remimazolam or propofol group (1:1) using a computer randomization system stratified by age and body weight. For anesthesia induction and maintenance, remifentanil was administered at a defined dose in both groups, and remimazolam or propofol was adjusted to maintain the bispectral index or state entropy monitoring within 40-60. All anesthetics were discontinued simultaneously after the postoperative X-ray and 0.5 mg flumazenil was administered to the remimazolam group. The primary outcome was extubation time after discontinuing anesthesia, and the secondary outcomes were time to eye opening, obeying commands, and achieving a white fast-track score (WFTS) of 12.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were finally analyzed: remimazolam group (n = 20), propofol group (n = 19). There were no significant differences in intraoperative variables, such as operative time, anesthesia time, and patient background, between the 2 groups. Extubation times were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group (4 vs 8 minutes, P < .001). The time to eye opening, obeying commands, and achieving a WFTS of 12 were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group (P < .001, for all comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam-based anesthesia with flumazenil resulted in a faster emergence than propofol-based anesthesia in older patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Remimazolam Compared to Propofol for Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Remifentanil on the Recovery of Psychomotor Function: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare remimazolam to propofol in psychomotor recovery after total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using the Trieger dot test.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients who were scheduled to undergo endoscopic sinus surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II were randomly allocated to the remimazolam (group R) or propofol group (group P). In group R, all patients received flumazenil postoperatively. After discontinuation of anesthetic agents, the time to eye opening, response to verbal commands, extubation, and discharge from the operation room were measured. Psychomotor recovery was assessed using the Trieger dot test before induction and at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min after anesthesia.

RESULTS

The time to eye opening, response to verbal commands, extubation, and discharge from the operation room were significantly longer in group P compared to group R (group P: 9.8 ± 3.2 min, 11.5 ± 3.4 min, 12.7 ± 3.4 min, 18.1 ± 4.2 min; group R: 6.5 ± 2 min, 7.3 ± 2.6 min, 8.4 ± 2.9 min, 13.2 ± 3.2 min; respectively, p < 0.05). In the Trieger dot test, the number of dots missed was significantly increased in group R compared to group P at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after discharge from the operation room (group R: 20.5 ± 9.3, 16 ± 8.8, 14.9 ± 11.1, 14.3 ± 10.8; group P: 14.6 ± 7.8, 10 ± 7.1, 8.7 ± 7.3, 7.3 ± 5.7; respectively, p < 0.05). The maximum distance of dots missed was significantly increased in group R compared to group P at 30 min after discharge from the operation room (group R: 3.9 ± 2.8; group P: 2.7 ± 1.6; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that remimazolam with flumazenil leads to rapid recovery following anesthesia; however, it may cause delayed psychomotor decline.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (registration number UMIN000044900).

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.

Sedation for adult ICU patients: A narrative review including a retrospective study of our own data

The optimization of patients' treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) needs a lot of information and literature analysis. Many changes have been made in the last years to help evaluate sedated patients by scores to help take care of them. Patients were completely sedated and had continuous intravenous analgesia and neuromuscular blockades. These three drug classes were the main drugs used for intubated patients in the ICU. During these last 20 years, ICU management went from fully sedated to awake, calm, and nonagitated patients, using less sedatives and choosing other drugs to decrease the risks of delirium during or after the ICU stay. Thus, the usefulness of these three drug classes has been challenged. The analgesic drugs used were primarily opioids but the use of other drugs instead is increasing to lessen or wean the use of opioids. In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, neuromuscular blocking agents have been used frequently to block spontaneous respiration for 48 hours or more; however, this has recently been abolished. Optimizing a patient's comfort during hemodynamic or respiratory extracorporeal support is essential to reduce toxicity and secondary complications.