Comparative Analysis of the Hemodynamic Effects of Remimazolam and Propofol During General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study.
Cureus 2024;
16:e58340. [PMID:
38752064 PMCID:
PMC11095992 DOI:
10.7759/cureus.58340]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/13/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
Hypotension is common during anesthesia induction. However, minimal hemodynamic effects of remimazolam anesthesia have been reported. We hypothesized that remimazolam would have weaker hemodynamic effects than would propofol. To test this, we simultaneously evaluated the hemodynamics using the estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) system and heart rate variability (HRV) during anesthesia induction.
METHODS
This was a single-center, observational, retrospective study of patients undergoing dental surgery under general anesthesia between 2020 and 2022. Seventy patients were divided into two groups: remimazolam (R group; n=34) and propofol (P group; n=36). The information obtained from the anesthesia records, patient information, esCCO system parameters, and HRV were integrated and analyzed. The percentages of various parameters were set to 100% for the pre-induction phase as the baseline.
RESULTS
The %MAP (noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure) decreased over a narrower range in the R compared to the P group (-17.8% (-26.3%, -11.9%) vs. -22.6% (-32.9%, -17.0%); P=0.039). The %HR (heart rate) increased significantly in the R group and decreased in the P group (+10.7% (+6.5%, +18.6%) vs. -6.5% (-14.5%, +8.4%); P<0.01). The %SVesCCO (stroke volume calculated using the esCCO system) decreased significantly in both groups, but the R group showed a smaller difference compared to the P group (- 5.1% (-7.7%, -2.1%) vs. -10.0% (-13.8%, -5.6%); P<0.01). The rates of change in %LF nu (normalized unit of low frequency) and %HF nu (normalized unit of high frequency) were lower for the R than for the P group, although the difference was not significant (+6.8% (-14.5%, 32.4%) vs. +9.2% (-7.2%, +59.7%), P=0.30; +7.9% (-51.0%, +66.9%) vs. +22.8% (-26.1%, +61.6%), P=0.57).
CONCLUSION
Remimazolam demonstrated a lower MAP reduction rate than propofol. A compensatory increase in HR occurred with a decrease in stroke volume. However, the HR increase was not attributable to the autonomic nervous system.
Collapse