Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparative Study of Remimazolam and Midazolam During Sedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

AIM

This study aimed to compare the use of remimazolam and midazolam in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan as a sub-analysis of data from an investigator-initiated clinical trial of remimazolam.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients in two groups were matched using propensity score matching. We evaluated the time from the end of the gastrointestinal endoscopy until discharge, the time from the end of the procedure until awakening, and adverse events. Overall, 36 participants from the clinical trial population who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using remimazolam and 199 patients who underwent the procedure with midazolam during the same period were included in this study. Following propensity score matching, 34 patients in both groups were matched. The median time from the end of the procedure until awakening was 27.0 min (23.0-40.5 min) in the midazolam group (Group M) and 0 min (0-5.0 min) in the remimazolam group (Group R); the median time from the end of the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy until discharge was 39.0 min (35.0-52.5 min) in Group M and 5.0 min (0-5.0 min) in Group R (p < 0.01). Reported adverse events were hypotension and hypoxemia in one patient in Group R.

CONCLUSION

Compared with midazolam, remimazolam significantly shortened the time to patient awakening and duration until the patient could leave the endoscopy room. Trial Registration: The main study (REM-IICT JP1) is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trails: jRCT2031200360.

Surgical risk stratification in patients with cirrhosis

Individuals with cirrhosis experience higher morbidity and mortality rates than the general population, irrespective of the type or scope of surgery. This increased risk is attributed to adverse effects of liver disease, encompassing coagulation dysfunction, altered metabolism of anesthesia and sedatives, immunologic dysfunction, hemorrhage related to varices, malnutrition and frailty, impaired wound healing, as well as diminished portal blood flow, overall hepatic circulation, and hepatic oxygen supply during surgical procedures. Therefore, a frequent clinical dilemma is whether surgical interventions should be pursued in patients with cirrhosis. Several risk scores are widely used to aid in the decision-making process, each with specific advantages and limitations. This review aims to discuss the preoperative risk factors in patients with cirrhosis, describe and compare surgical risk assessment models used in everyday practice, provide insights into the surgical risk according to the type of surgery and present recommendations for optimizing those with cirrhosis for surgical procedures. As the primary focus is on currently available risk models, the review describes the predictive value of each model, highlighting its specific advantages and limitations. Furthermore, for models that do not account for the type of surgical procedure to be performed, the review suggests incorporating both patient-related and surgery-related risks into the decision-making process. Finally, we provide an algorithm for the preoperative assessment of patients with cirrhosis before elective surgery as well as guidance perioperative management.

A Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol for Deep Sedation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Neuromuscular Blocking Agents

Purpose: The optimal agent for deep sedation in patients undergoing continuous infusion (CI) neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam in ARDS patients requiring CI NMBA. Methods: A multi-center, retrospective study was performed in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult patients requiring CI NMBA for management of ARDS. The primary outcome was to compare the time to liberation from MV in patients sedated with propofol vs midazolam. Results: In the 109 patients included, there was no difference in time to MV liberation with propofol as compared to midazolam (121 hr [Interquartile range (IQR) 67 195] vs 98 hr [IQR 48, 292], P = .72). Median time to sedation emergence after NMBA discontinuation was shorter in patients receiving propofol (12.9 hr [IQR 19.8, 72.5] vs 31.5 hr [IQR 6.4, 34.6], P < .01). There were no significant differences in time to therapeutic sedation, ICU stay, mortality, and adverse events. Conclusion: Propofol may be an effective and safe alternative to midazolam for patients undergoing CI NMBA for ARDS. Additionally, patients receiving propofol may have a quicker return to light sedation after NMBA discontinuation.

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.

Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

Current vision on diagnosis and comprehensive care in hepatic encephalopathy

The first clinical guidelines on hepatic encephalopathy were published in 2009. Almost 14 years since that first publication, numerous advances in the field of diagnosis, treatment, and special condition care have been made. Therefore, as an initiative of the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología A.C., we present a current view of those aspects. The manuscript described herein was formulated by 24 experts that participated in six working groups, analyzing, discussing, and summarizing the following topics: Definition of hepatic encephalopathy; recommended classifications; epidemiologic panorama, worldwide and in Mexico; diagnostic tools; conditions that merit a differential diagnosis; treatment; and primary and secondary prophylaxis. Likewise, these guidelines emphasize the management of certain special conditions, such as hepatic encephalopathy in acute liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure, as well as specific care in patients with hepatic encephalopathy, such as the use of medications and types of sedation, describing those that are permitted or recommended, and those that are not.

Clinical Guideline on Perioperative Management of Patients with Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

(1) Background: Patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) are living longer with more comorbidities because of improved medical and surgical management. However, patients with ACLD are at increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality; (2) Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to support a narrative clinical guideline about the assessment of mortality risk and management of perioperative morbidity in patients with ACLD undergoing surgical procedures; (3) Results: Slight data exist to guide the perioperative management of patients with ACLD, and most recommendations are based on case series and expert opinion. The severity of liver dysfunction, portal hypertension, cardiopulmonary and renal comorbidities, and complexity of surgery and type (elective versus emergent) are predictors of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Expert multidisciplinary teams are necessary to evaluate and manage ACLD before, during, and after surgical procedures; (4) Conclusions: This clinical practice document updates the available data and recommendations to optimize the management of patients with advanced chronic liver disease who undergo surgical procedures.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I² = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

RESULTS

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

CONCLUSION

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections - review and new proposed classification

Pancreatic fluids collections are local complications related to acute or chronic pancreatitis and may require intervention when symptomatic and/or complicated. Within the last decade, endoscopic management of these collections via endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage has become the gold standard treatment for encapsulated pancreatic collections with high clinical success and lower morbidity compared to traditional surgery and percutaneous drainage. Proper understanding of anatomic landmarks, including assessment of the main pancreatic duct and any associated lesions - such as disruptions and strictures - are key to achieving clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention or recurrence, especially in cases with suspected disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Additionally, proper review of imaging and anatomic landmarks, including collection location, are pivotal to determine type and size of pancreatic stenting as well as approach using long-term transmural indwelling plastic stents. Pancreatography to adequately assess the main pancreatic duct may be performed by two methods: Either non-invasively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopically via retrograde cholangiopan-creatography. Despite the critical need to understand anatomy via pancrea-tography and assess the main pancreatic duct, a standardized approach or uniform assessment strategy has not been described in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this review was to clarify the role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections and to propose a new classification system to aid in proper assessment and endoscopic treatment.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

CONCLUSION

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.