Remimazolam tosilate in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial

Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation Combined with Moderate Sedation of Remimazolam Tosilate in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Further clinical validation is required to determine whether transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) can replace opioids and be used in combination with remimazolam for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 108 outpatients who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly divided into three groups: fentanyl plus remimazolam group (group C), TEAS plus remimazolam group (group E), and placebo-TEAS plus remimazolam group (group P). The assessments of patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, and pain scale score during the examination constituted the primary endpoints of the study. The secondary endpoints were the time of recovery, recovery of normal behavioral function and discharge, incidence of adverse reactions, and dose of remimazolam.

RESULTS

Compared with group C, group E had a greater median score for patient satisfaction at follow-up and a slightly lower median score for physician satisfaction. The pain score of group E was slightly greater than that of group C, but the difference was not significant. However, in group C, the incidence of hypoxemia, the rate of nausea and the severity of vertigo were greater, and the number of patients discharged and resuming normal behavioral function was greater than those in the other two groups. The dose of remimazolam in group C and group E was less than that in group P.

CONCLUSIONS

TEAS combined with moderate sedation of remimazolam can provide an ideal sedative effect, which preferably suppresses discomfort caused by gastrointestinal endoscopy and has fewer sedation-related complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID: NCT05485064; First registration (29/07/2022); Last registration (02/11/2022) (Clinical Trials.gov).

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.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Influences of Propofol, Ciprofol and Remimazolam on Dreaming During Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Parallel-Design Trial

Purpose

To compare the influences of propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam on dreaming during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This study was a single-center, prospective, parallel-design, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Between May 2023 and October 2023, patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the three groups. Demographic data, intraoperative information, incidence of dreaming, insufficient anesthesia and intraoperative awareness, type of dream, patient satisfaction score, adverse events, and improvement of sleep quality were collected.

Results

The difference in incidence of dreaming among the three groups was not significant (33.33% vs 48.33% vs 41.67%, p=0.061). The number of patients with intraoperative hypotension in the propofol group was larger than that of the remimazolam group (32 vs 12, p=0.001). However, the cases of intraoperative hypotension between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group were comparable (32 vs 22, p=0.122; 22 vs 12, p=0.064). The percentage of insufficient anesthesia between propofol group and remimazolam group was significant (13.33% vs 1.67%, p=0.001), while no statistical difference was detected between propofol group and remimazolam group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (13.33% vs 5.00%, p=0.025; 5.00% vs 1.67%, p=0.150). The ability of propofol to improve sleep quality at 1st post-examination day was significantly better than that of remimazolam (86.21% vs 72.88%, p=0.015), while it was not significant between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (86.21% vs 80.36%, p=0.236; 72.88% vs. 72.88%, p=0.181). Incidence of intraoperative awareness, intraoperative hypoxia, type of dream, satisfaction score, adverse events during recovery, and sleep improvement on the 7th post-examination day was not significant among the groups.

Conclusion

Anesthesia with propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam, respectively, for gastrointestinal endoscopy did not induce statistical difference in the incidence of dreaming, despite that all of them are more likely to induce pleasant dreams.

Effect of Remimazolam on Induction and Maintenance of General Anesthesia in Kidney Transplant Patients

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the effect of remimazolam on induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in kidney transplant patients.

Methods

120 patients undergoing kidney transplant were divided into two groups: Propofol group (Group P) and Remimazolam group (Group R). Anesthesia induction: remimazolam had injected IV at a dose of 0.15-0.35 mg/kg in Group R, while propofol had injected IV at a dose of 2.0-2.5 mg/kg in Group P. Anesthesia maintenance: remimazolam was injected IV at a dose of 0.3-1.0 mg·kg-1·h-1 and propofol was injected IV at a dose of 1-12 mg·kg-1·h-1 in Group R, propofol was injected IV at a dose of 3-12 mg·kg-1·h-1 in Group P. All patients have the same remaining anesthesia durgs.

Results

Compared with Group P, in Group R the time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the time to drop to 60 in BIS was longer (P < 0.05), the time of awakening was shorted (P < 0.05), the MAP of T6 was fluctuated less (P < 0.05), the incidence of hypotension and injection pain during induction was reduced (P < 0.001), the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia during operation was reduced (P < 0.05), the dosages of sedatives drug during maintenance was reduced (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative renal function between the two groups of patients (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam can be safely and effectively used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in kidney transplant patients.

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Propofol Sedation on the Early Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Day Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Remimazolam tosilate is a novel ultrafast-acting benzodiazepine that has a rapid emergence even after continuous infusion when using flumazenil. So far, relatively few articles are still focusing on the quality of recovery after general anesthesia with remimazolam, especially in day surgery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative quality of recovery of remimazolam tosilate with flumazenil and propofol in patients undergoing day surgery.

Patients and Methods

137 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomly divided into the remimazolam tosilate or propofol group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of overall recovery assessed with the early postoperative quality of recovery scale (PostopQRS) on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), extubation time, postoperative recovery profiles, and perioperative data were documented. Any adverse events were recorded.

Results

The incidence of overall recovery on POD1 was 47.7% in the remimazolam tosilate group and 65.1% in the propofol group (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.072). In general, the overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time, and its interaction between time and group was significant (P = 0.003). Among the five dimensions of PostopQRS, there exist statistical differences between groups including emotional state and cognitive recovery. Upon arrival at the PACU, the remimazolam group was more sedated and took longer to recover to a RASS score similar to propofol. The frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia was similar in both groups (P = 0.119). Despite rapid emergence with remimazolam after flumazenil reversal, re-sedation (10.8%) or somnolence (60%) in the PACU was observed, and the length of PACU stay in patients treated with remimazolam tosilate was longer than that of the propofol (35 min vs 30 min, P<0.001).

Conclusion

General anesthesia with remimazolam tosilate in conjunction with flumazenil reversal permits rapid recovery of consciousness in day surgery, but there was a notable occurrence of re-sedation or somnolence observed in PACU.

The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP

BACKGROUND

Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, this study aims to determine the 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam to inhibit responses to insertion of a duodenoscope during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A dose-response study was carried out undergoing ERCP who received remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia using 10 µg/kg of alfentanil between September 2021 and November 2021. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.2 mg/kg. The dose was then decided based on the responses of earlier patients by exploiting the sequential ascend and descend according to a 9: 1 biased coin design. Upon failure, the dose of remimazolam was increased by 0.025 mg/kg in the next patient. When the insertion was successful, the succeeding patient was randomized to an identical dose or a dose that was lower by 0.025 mg/kg.The ED90 of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP was calculated. Adverse events and complications of remimazolam were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 55 elderly patients (age > 65) were included in the study. 45 successfully anesthetized patients, and 10 unsuccessfully. The ED90 of remimazolam was 0.300 mg/kg (95% CI = 0.287-0.320). ED95 was 0.315 (95% CI = 0.312-0.323) and ED99 was 0.323 (95% CI = 0.323-0.325). Among the patients, 9 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed bradycardia and 1 patient developed tachycardia, and hypoxia occurred in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A loading dose of 0.300 mg / kg of remimazolam for elderly patients undergoing ERCP can safely, effectively, and quickly induce patients to fall asleep and inhibit responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered at the website ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/09/2021(NCT05053763).

ED50 of remimazolam combined with different doses butorphanol for first trimester artificial abortion

Introduction

Remimazolam (RMZ) is a novel intravenous sedative drug of ultra-short benzodiazepine. The optimal dose of RMZ plus butorphanol for sedation during first trimester artificial abortion is unknown. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the median effective dose (ED50) of RMZ combined with different doses of butorphanol on the sedative effect for first-trimester artificial abortion.

Methods

Sixty-one female patients were randomly assigned to Group B10 (31 patients) and Group B15 (30 patients). RMZ was administered 5 min after IV butorphanol at doses of 10 μg/kg (Group B10) and 15 μg/kg (Group B15). Cervical dilatation at the time of using a cervical dilating rod, if the patient has body movement and affects the gynecologist's operation, we define it as "Ineffective." Therefore, the dose of RMZ was increased in the next patient. Otherwise, it was defined as "Effective," and the dose of RMZ was reduced in the next patient. According to the pre-experiment, the first dose of RMZ in the first patient was 0.35 mg/kg, and the adjacent geometric dose ratio was 0.9. The centered isotonic regression was performed to determine the ED50 of RMZ. The total RMZ dose administered, recovery time, and anesthesia-related adverse events were all recorded.

Results

The ED50 (90% CI) of RMZ was 0.263 (0.215-0.310) mg/kg in Group B10, and 0.224 (0.191-0.261) mg/kg in Group B15, respectively. The recovery time in Group B10 was significantly shorter than in Group B15 (9.8 ± 2.3 vs. 12.5 ± 3.6 min, p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of all anesthesia-related adverse events between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The ED50 of RMZ combined with a 10 μg/kg or 15 μg/kg dose of butorphanol was 0.263 and 0.224 mg/kg during painless first trimester artificial abortion. However, RMZ combined with a 10 μg/kg dose of butorphanol seems to have a shorter recovery time.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=166623.

Apnea during moderate to deep sedation using continuous infusion of remimazolam compared to propofol and dexmedetomidine: A retrospective observational study

Remimazolam's rapid onset and offset make it an innovative sedative for use during regional anesthesia. However, its respiratory safety profile is not well understood. We compared the continuous infusion of remimazolam with commonly used sedatives, propofol and dexmedetomidine, after regional anesthesia. In this retrospective study, the incidence of apnea (>10 seconds) was assessed in patients who underwent orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia and received moderate to deep sedation using continuous infusion of remimazolam (group R: 0.1 mg/kg in 2 minutes followed by 0.5 mg/kg/hr). The incidence was compared with that of propofol (group P: 2-3 μg/mL target-controlled infusion) and dexmedetomidine (group D: 1 μg/kg in 10 minutes followed by 0.4-1 μg/kg/hr). Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression model was utilized to determine the effects of the sedative agents on the incidence of apnea. A total of 634 (191, 278, and 165 in group R, P, and D) cases were included in the final analysis. The incidence of apnea was 63.9%, 67.3%, and 48.5% in group R, P, and D, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for apnea were 2.33 (95% CI, 1.50 to 3.61) and 2.50 (95% CI, 1.63 to 3.85) in group R and P, compared to group D. The incidence of apnea in patients receiving moderate to deep sedation using continuous infusion of remimazolam with dosage suggested in the current study was over 60%. Therefore, careful titration and respiratory monitoring is warranted.

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopic examination: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for hysteroscopic examination, to determine the optimal dose of remimazolam combined with alfentanil for painless hysteroscopy, and to calculate its median effective dose (ED50).

METHODS

Step 1: A total of 208 patients undergoing hysteroscopic examination were prospectively included in this study. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam (group A), 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate (group B), 0.3 mg/kg remimazolam (group C), and 2 mg/kg propofol (group D), with 52 patients in each group. One minute after losing consciousness, patients received an intravenous injection of alfentanil at 5 µg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of alfentanil at 0.5 µg/kg/min. If patients showed frowning, movement, or MOAA/S > 1, sedatives were added: 0.05 mg/kg/dose of remimazolam for groups A, B, and C, and 0.5 mg/kg/dose of propofol for group D. Step 2: Dixon's up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil during hysteroscopic examination.

MAIN RESULTS

The sedation success rates of the remimazolam groups were 88.46%, 94.23%, and 98.08%, respectively, compared to 96.15% in the propofol group, with no significant difference (P = .175). MAP in groups A and B was higher than in group D (P < .05), and significantly higher in group C than in group D (P = .0016). SpO2 values in groups A, B, and C were higher than in group D at T2 to T3 (P < .001). HR in groups A, B, and C was significantly higher than in group D (P < .001). The ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopy was 0.244 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.195-0.22) and ED95 was 0.282 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.261-1.619).

CONCLUSION

In hysteroscopy, the sedative effect of remimazolam is like that of propofol, with 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam showing better safety and efficacy, and less impact on the respiratory and circulatory systems. Additionally, under the influence of alfentanil, the ED50 of remimazolam in hysteroscopy is 0.244 mg/kg, with no severe adverse reactions observed.

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.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial.

SETTING

Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022.

PATIENTS

A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 μg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 μg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events.

RESULTS

All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

Remimazolam Dosing for Gastroscopy: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, may provide adequate sedation for endoscopy while causing less cardiovascular or respiratory disturbance than propofol. Although fixed-dose administration is suggested, body weight affects the volume of the central chamber and thus affects the sedation depth that can be achieved by the first dose. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam and propofol by body weight for sedation during gastroscopy.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled noninferiority trial recruited patients from five centers between March 2021 and July 2022. A total of 1,883 patients scheduled to undergo gastroscopy were randomized to groups receiving 0.15 mg/kg remimazolam, 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam, or 1.5 mg/kg propofol. The noninferiority margin was set to 5%. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Adverse events were recorded to evaluate safety.

RESULTS

The sedation success rate of the 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam group was not inferior to that of the 1.5 mg/kg propofol group (98.7% vs. 99.4%; risk difference, -0.64%; 97.5% CI, -2.2 to 0.7%, meeting criteria for noninferiority). However, the sedation success rate of the 0.15 mg/kg remimazolam group was 88.5%, and that of the 1.5 mg/kg propofol group was 99.4% (risk difference, -10.8%; 97.5% CI, -14.0% to -8.0%), demonstrating inferiority. Simultaneously, the overall adverse events rate of remimazolam was lower than that of propofol, and the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, subclinical respiratory depression, and hypoxia in the remimazolam groups was significantly lower than that in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial established the noninferior sedation success rate of remimazolam (0.2 mg/kg but not 0.15 mg/kg) compared with propofol (1.5 mg/kg), with a superior safety profile.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Benefits of remimazolam as an anesthetic sedative for older patients: A review

Owing to the decreased levels of receptors in the peripheral and central nervous systems, the functions of various organ systems decline in older patients. When administering anesthesia to older patients, it is necessary to consider the effects of medication on the homeostatic balance. Remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine, was recently developed as an anesthetic drug that has shown promise in clinical anesthesia application owing to its molecular structure, targets, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetic characteristics. Remimazolam exhibits a rapid onset and metabolism, with minor effects on liver and kidney functions. Moreover, the drug has a specific antagonist, flumazenil. It is safer to use in older patients than other anesthetic sedatives and has been widely used since its introduction. Comparisons of the pharmacokinetics, metabolic pathways, effects on target organs, and hemodynamics of different drugs with those of commonly used anesthetic sedative drugs are useful to inform clinical practice. This article elaborates on the benefits of remimazolam compared with those of other anesthetic sedatives for sedation in older patients to demonstrate how it offers a new option for anesthetics in older patients. In cases involving older patients with increased clinical complexities or very old patients requiring anesthesia, remimazolam can be selected as the preferred anesthetic sedative, as outlined in this review.

Randomized controlled trial of remimazolam compared with placebo in Japanese patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Phase III investigator-initiated clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of remimazolam against normal saline (placebo) as a sedative agent for endoscopy in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, investigator-initiated phase III controlled trial.

METHODS

We included 48 Japanese patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. For the procedure, an initial remimazolam dose of 3 mg and additional doses of 1 mg were administered, as determined in the phase II clinical study. The primary study end-point was the successful sedation rate during gastrointestinal endoscopy, determined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score ≤4 before the start of endoscopy, the completion of gastrointestinal endoscopy, and two or fewer additional doses per 6 min.

RESULTS

The successful endoscopy sedation rates were 91.9% and 9.1% in the remimazolam and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.01). The time from the end of endoscopy to arousal was 0.0 (0.0-0.0) min for both groups. The number of additional doses required to achieve sedation was lower in the remimazolam group than that in the placebo group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam demonstrated a significantly higher sedation effect during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japanese patients with safe and fast recovery compared with placebo.

Comparison of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background: Remimazolam has shown similar or even superior properties to propofol in procedural sedation in adults, but few studies have been conducted in pediatric populations. Thus, we aimed to compare the effect and safety of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). Methods: Pediatrics <18 years scheduled for elective BDE under sedation were included and randomly assigned to remimazolam group (R group) or propofol group (P group). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes include sedation-related information and adverse events. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and perfusion index (PI) were recorded during sedation. Results: A total of 106 patients were enrolled and analyzed. The success rate of sedation was 100% in both groups. Compared with the P group, the induction time of the R group was significantly prolonged (p < 0.001), and the incidence of injection pain, intraoperative respiratory depression, hypotension and bradycardia was significantly lower (p < 0.001). The changes in MAP, HR and PI were relatively stable in the R group compared with the P group. Additionally, awake time significantly decreased with age by approximately 1.12 index points for each increase in age in the P group (p = 0.002) but not in the R group (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the decline in PI and PI ratio during BDE was related to body movement in the P group. Conclusion: Remimazolam combined with low dose esketamine has a non-inferior sedative effect than propofol for pediatric BDE, with no injection pain, less respiratory depression, more stable hemodynamics. Moreover, early detection of the decline in PI may avoid harmful stimulation under light anesthesia. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05686863?id=NCT05686863&rank=1, NCT05686863.

Remimazolam: A Retrospective Study of Initial Safety and Recovery Data in Diverse Procedural Sedation

PURPOSE

The new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, remimazolam, offers a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantage over commonly used procedural sedation medication. This retrospective study explored the real-world utilization of remimazolam during procedural sedation to support the development of a nurse sedation protocol. The primary outcome was to identify associations between recovery time, adverse reactions, and dose-response in expanded patient populations.

METHODS

This study reviewed charts of 292 adult patients from 3 hospitals within one institution who received remimazolam during procedural sedation between June 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed using logistic and linear regression.

FINDINGS

The median time to alert in patients receiving remimazolam alone was 12 minutes (interquartile range 10, 17) and increased when additional sedation medications were utilized. Receiving additional sedative medication significantly increased the odds of hypoxia (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.30-5.91, P = 0.008) after adjusting for body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS), and total remimazolam dose. There was a 25% increase in odds of experiencing hypoxia for every 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (95% CI 1.01-1.54, P = 0.037).

IMPLICATIONS

Remimazolam presents as a promising option for nurse procedural sedation, offering minimal impact on hemodynamics and respirations, quick recovery, and no residual sedative effects.

The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety and efficiency of remimazolam with those of propofol in patients undergoing gastroscope sedation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SINOMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that reported on remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscope sedation from establishment to February 25, 2023. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17 were used to perform all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 26 randomized controlled trials involving 3,641 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that remimazolam had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.57; p < 0.01, GRADE high), hypoxemia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.49; p < 0.01, GRADE high), bradycardia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.51; p < 0.01, GRADE high), dizziness (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.65; p < 0.01, GRADE high), injection site pain (RR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.03-0.13; p < 0.01, GRADE high), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; p = 0.05, GRADE moderate), and hypotension (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.48; p < 0.01, GRADE low).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam can be used safely in gastroscopic sedation and reduces the incidence of respiratory depression, hypoxemia, bradycardia, injection site pain, and dizziness compared with propofol, and doesn't increase the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Effect of remimazolam vs propofol in high-risk patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation is essential for optimizing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in high-risk patients with multiple underlying diseases. Respiratory and circulatory complications present significant challenges for procedural sedation in this population. This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the safety and comfort of remimazolam compared to propofol for procedural sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 576 high-risk patients scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy are planned to be enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to either the remimazolam or propofol group. The primary outcome measure is a composite endpoint, which includes (1) achieving a Modified Observer's Alertness/Sedation scale (MOAA/S) score ≤ 3 before endoscope insertion, (2) successful completion of the endoscopic procedure, (3) the absence of significant respiratory instability during the endoscopy and treatment, and (4) the absence of significant circulatory instability during the examination. The noninferiority margin was 10%. Any adverse events (AEs) that occur will be reported.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to determine whether remimazolam is non-inferior to propofol for procedural sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in high-risk patients, regarding success rate, complication incidence, patient comfort, and satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A AND 2B}: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR2200066527. Registered on 7 December 2022.

Effect of remimazolam on electroencephalogram burst suppression in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery: Protocol for a randomized controlled noninferiority trial

Background

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication following cardiac surgery and increases postoperative morbidity and mortality. Intraoperative electroencephalogram (EEG) burst suppression suggests excessively deep anesthesia and predicts POD. Use of remimazolam provides a stable hemodynamic status and an appropriate depth of anesthesia. We aim to assess remimazolam administered for anesthesia and sedation in elderly patients having cardiac surgery.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled clinical trial with noninferiority design. A total of 260 elderly patients aged equal to or greater than 60 years undergoing cardiac surgery will be randomly allocated to receive remimazolam or propofol (1:1) for general anesthesia and postoperative sedation until extubation. The primary outcome is the cumulative time with EEG burst suppression which is obtained from the SedLine system. The noninferiority margin is 2.0 min. The secondary outcomes include the POD occurrence within the first 5 days postoperatively and the duration of perioperative hypotension.

Discussion

This noninferiority trial is the first to evaluate the effect of perioperative remimazolam administration on EEG burst suppression, POD occurrence, and duration of hypotension in elderly patients who undergo cardiac surgery.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056353).

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

The effective dose of remimazolam in adult gastroscopy

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the dose required for successful anesthesia in 95% of the patients (ED95) of remimazolam for intravenous anesthesia in adult outpatients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted in patients scheduled to undergo painless gastroscopy at the authors' hospital between March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022. The ED of remimazolam was determined using the modified Dixon sequential method, using an initial induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg. With successful or failed anesthesia, the remimazolam dose was decreased or increased by 0.05 mg/kg for the next patient, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (43.6 ± 10.5 years of age) were enrolled. During gastroscopy, the remimazolam induction dose was 19.93 ± 2.96 mg (0.2-0.45 mg/kg). Eighteen patients could complete anesthesia with remimazolam alone, and four patients needed propofol to complete anesthesia. The induction time after the injection of remimazolam was 20.8 ± 8.4 s, the gastroscopy time was 5.1 ± 1.3 min, and the anesthesia recovery time was 17.5 ± 5.6 min. The ED50 and the ED95 of remimazolam were 0.362 mg/kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.313-0.455 mg/kg) and 0.464 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.403-2.242 mg/kg), respectively. The vital signs of all patients remained within the predefined acceptable limits. No patients required antagonist rescue.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam for adult gastroscopy were 0.362 mg/kg and 0.464 mg/kg, respectively. Additional anesthetics might be required during gastroscopy in some patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered. The number is ChiCTR2200057446.

Efficacy of pretreatment with remimazolam on prevention of propofol-induced injection pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy

To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam pretreatment in preventing propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) in patients undergoing gastroscopy. One hundred and forty patients (ASA I-II, aged 18-65 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m2) who were to undergo gastroscopy were randomized into either a saline group (group S) or a remimazolam group (group R) (n = 70 for each) on a computer-generated random number basis. The patients in group S received normal saline (0.1 ml/kg) and those in group R were administered remimazolam (0.1 mg/kg) via intravenous infusion for 60 s. 30 s after the injection of normal saline or remimazolam, patients received intravenously propofol (0.5 ml/s) until loss of consciousness. A different anesthesiologist who was unaware of the pretreatment was responsible for maintaining the outcome. The primary endpoint of our study was the incidence of PIP, which was measured using a 4-point scale. Secondary endpoints include the intensity of PIP, vital signs, characteristics of surgery and recovery, and adverse events. The incidence of PIP was significantly lower in group R than in group S (13 vs 51%, p < 0.001), and a lower percentage of patients presented with moderate PIP (3 vs 20%, p < 0.001). Moreover, lower consumption of propofol, shorter recovery time, and greater patient satisfaction were observed in group R than in group S. Pretreatment with remimazolam can effectively reduce the incidence and intensity of PIP in gastroscopy and shorten the recovery time without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR2200063793). Registry time: 16/09/2022. Registry name: Efficacy of Pre-Treatment with Remimazolam on Prevention of Propofol-Induced Injection Pain in Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy. The date of patient enrollment began from 2022-9-17 to 2022-10-10. The link to the registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=176004 .

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 .

Nanoparticle-mediated active and passive drug targeting in oral squamous cell carcinoma: current trends and advances

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is an invasive and highly malignant cancer with significant morbidity and mortality. Existing treatments including surgery, chemotherapy and radiation have poor overall survival rates and prognosis. The intended therapeutic effects of chemotherapy are limited by drug resistance, systemic toxicity and adverse effects. This review explores advances in OSCC treatment, with a focus on lipid-based platforms (solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers, lipid-polymer hybrids, cubosomes), polymeric nanoparticles, self-assembling nucleoside nanoparticles, dendrimers, magnetic nanovectors, graphene oxide nanostructures, stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, gene therapy, folic acid receptor targeting, gastrin-releasing peptide receptor targeting, fibroblast activation protein targeting, urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor targeting, biotin receptor targeting and transferrin receptor targeting. This review also highlights oncolytic viruses as OSCC therapy candidates.

Comparison of 95% effective dose of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopy sedation on older patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events during procedural sedation. Remimazolam is safe and effective in gastroscopic sedation. However, the ideal dose and application for older patients are not well known. We aim to investigate its 95% effective dose (ED95) for older patients undergoing gastroscopy and to assess its safety and efficacy, with propofol as the comparison.

METHODS

The trial consists of 2 parts, patients aged >65 years and scheduled for outpatient painless gastroscopy were enrolled. In the first part, Dixon's up-and-down methodology was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopic insertion, in combination with 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil. In the second part, patients in each group received 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil and ED95 dose of the study drugs for sedation induction, supplemental doses were added to maintain sedation depth when necessary. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome was the recovery time.

RESULTS

The ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol induction were 0.2039 (95% confidence interval 0.1753-0.3896) mg/kg and 1.9733 (95% confidence interval 1.7346-3.7021) mg/kg respectively. Adverse events were reported in 26 (40.6%) patients in the remimazolam group and 54 (83.1%) in the propofol group (P < .0001), whereas the remimazolam group presented a higher incidence of hiccups (P = .0169). Besides, the median time to awakening was approximately 1 min shorter with remimazolam than with propofol (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For older patients undergoing gastroscopy, the ED95 dose of remimazolam is a safer alternative than propofol when inducing the same sedation depth.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with those of propofol for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

METHODS

Patients with OSAHS receiving DISE were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam or propofol group. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2 ] < 90%) during DISE. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of severe hypoxemia (SpO2  < 80%), the minimal value of SpO2 , sedation success rate (completion of DISE according to the medication regimen), and incidence of events of interest (including injection pain, bradycardia, and decreased respiratory rate).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included in this study. The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (25.00% vs 62.50%, respectively; relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.74; p < .01). There was no significant difference in the sedation success rate between the remimazolam and propofol groups (96.88% vs 81.25%, respectively; relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50; p = .10). The incidence of at least 1 event of interest was lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (43.75% vs 96.88%, respectively; relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can present satisfactory sedative efficacy in DISE, with a lower incidence of hypoxemia and a higher safety profile than propofol.

Remimazolam vs Etomidate: Haemodynamic Effects in Hypertensive Elderly Patients Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a novel ultrashort-acting γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABAA) agonist, with several advantages including rapid induction and recovery, stable haemodynamics, and mild respiratory inhibition. However, studies have not been conducted to explore the haemodynamic effects of RT in elderly hypertensive subjects undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare the effects of anaesthesia induction using different doses of RT and etomidate on the haemodynamics of this group of patients.

Methods

Patients were recruited into this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial from October 2022 to June 2023. A total of 150 hypertensive elderly undergoing non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned into 0.2 mg/kg RT group (Group RL), 0.3 mg/kg RT group (Group RH) and 0.3 mg/kg etomidate group (Group E). The primary outcome of the study was haemodynamic changes (mean arterial pressure fluctuation value -∆MAP and heart rate fluctuation value -∆HR) observed during anaesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and adverse drug reactions (injection pain and myoclonus), cumulative doses of vasoactive drugs and vital signs at different time points.

Results

Patients in Group E and Group RL had significantly lower haemodynamic fluctuations (∆MAP), lower incidence of hypotension and cumulative dose of ephedrine than subjects in Group RH. Patients in groups RL and RH had significantly lower incidence of injection pain and myoclonus compared with patients in group E. The results showed no statistically significant differences in ∆HR, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, and time to loss of eye-opening reflex and start of intubation, and vital signs at different time points among the three groups.

Conclusion

Use of low-dose RT (0.2 mg/kg) for induction of non-cardiac surgical anaesthesia in elderly hypertensive patients is more effective in maintaining haemodynamic stability and has fewer adverse effects compared with etomidate.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Doses of Remimazolam Tosilate Applied in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Trial

Background

Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine narcotic. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopy or bronchoscopy, it provides adequate sedation and rapid recovery. However, studies on the optimal initial loading dose of remimazolam remain inadequate. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different doses of remimazolam applied in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 218 patients scheduled for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were included in our trial and divided into experimental and control groups: the experimental groups were the remimazolam groups (R1 of 0.2 mg/kg, R2 of 0.3 mg/kg, and R3 of 0.4 mg/kg), and the control group was the propofol group. Following a single injection of trial drugs during the induction period, operational requirements were evaluated based on MOAA/S scores. When the sedation was successfully achieved, safety was evaluated based on the incidence of various intraoperative and postoperative adverse events.

Results

The success rates of intraoperative sedation were 82% in group R1, 98% in group R2, 96% in group R3, and 100% in group P. The incidence of hypotension was lower in the remimazolam groups than in the propofol group (16%), 4% in group R1, 6% in group R2, and 6% in group R3. The incidence of postoperative vertigo was significantly higher, and sedation recovery time was prolonged in high-concentration remimazolam group.

Conclusion

Satisfactory efficacy can be obtained with higher concentrations of remimazolam tosilate in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with ASA grade I or II. However, as the dose is progressively increased, the incidence of adverse reactions by remimazolam tosilate are also significantly increased, such as vertigo and prolonged sedation recovery time.

Trial Registration

The trial was registered prior to enrollment at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 2000032067).

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate Combined with Esketamine for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Purpose

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate combined with esketamine for outpatient colonoscopy.

Patients and methods

A total of 150 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. A MOAA/S score ≤3 was maintained. The primary outcome was the rate of successful colonoscopy completion. Time indicators, hemodynamic parameters, the consumption of lidocaine, esketamine, propofol and remimazolam besylate, MOAA/S scores and bispectral index (BIS) values, the lowest SpO2, body movement, the use of rescue medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, mini-mental state examination (MMSE), fatigue level and adverse events were recorded.

Results

Procedure completion was equivalent between groups (P > 0.05). Both induction and awakening times were significantly shorter in the P group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in colonoscopy time and discharge time (P > 0.05). The lowest SpO2 was significantly lower in the P group, while the level of fatigue was higher (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the R group (P < 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the P group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure between groups except at T5 and T6 (P > 0.05). Both HR and RR were significantly lower in the P group from T3 to T5 (P < 0.05). BIS values were significantly lower in the P group from T3 to T5, while MOAA/S was significantly lower in the P group at T3 and T4 (P < 0.05). Pain on injection was significantly higher in the P group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam besylate has a similar efficacy to propofol when combined with subanesthetic doses of esketamine during outpatient colonoscopy. Remimazolam besylate combined with esketamine resulted in less injection pain and more stable hemodynamics, although it prolonged induction and awakening time.

Remimazolam versus propofol in combination with esketamine for surgical abortion: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

Remimazolam is a new benzodiazepine with a short half-life, good efficacy, and safety profiles in general anesthesia. Combining esketamine with propofol (P + E) could reduce propofol consumption and injection pain. It is, however, unclear if a low dose of remimazolam co-administrated with esketamine (R + E) is comparable to the increasingly used P + E for surgical abortion with general anesthetic. We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of R + E and P + E. Two hundred patients scheduled for a surgical abortion were randomized to receive remimazolam 0.3 mg/kg plus esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (R + E), and propofol 2 mg/kg plus esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (P + E). Sedative effectiveness was evaluated by measuring the time to lose consciousness (LOC), recovery time, and successful sedation rate. Safety was assessed by hemodynamics and adverse events during and postoperation. The time to LOC and recovery time in R + E was 5 s shorter and 1 min longer than that in P + E, respectively (both p < 0.001). Success sedation rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.73). Bradycardia incidence and injection site pain were less frequent in the R + E group than that in the P + E group. More rash was observed in the R + E group compared with the P + E group (32% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), but all were mild (only chest rash) and resolved subsequently. Low dose of remimazolam when combined with esketamine has favorable profiles with rapid onset and recovery, but mild hemodynamic side effects and adverse events. It can be used as an alternative for surgical abortion with general anesthetic.

Effects of remimazolam on hemodynamic changes during cardiac ablation for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia: a propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Abrupt hemodynamic changes or life-threatening arrhythmias are frequently observed in individuals receiving anesthesia for cardiac arrhythmia ablation. Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that has been associated with better hemodynamic stability than conventional anesthetic agents do. This study aimed to investigate whether remimazolam reduces vasoactive agent use compared with desflurane in individuals undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we reviewed electronic medical records of adult patients who underwent ablation for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia between July 2021 and July 2022. We divided patients into remimazolam and desflurane groups according to the principal agent used for anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the overall incidence of vasoactive agent use. We compared the groups using propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients were included-78 in the remimazolam group and 99 in the desflurane group. After PSM, 78 final patients were included in each group. The overall incidence of vasoactive agent use was significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the desflurane group (41% vs 74% before PSM; 41% vs 73% after PSM; both, P < 0.001). The incidence rate, duration, and maximum dose of continuous vasopressor infusion were also significantly lower in the remimazolam group (P < 0.001). Use of remimazolam was not associated with increased complications after the ablation procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

General anesthesia using remimazolam vs desflurane was associated with significantly reduced vasoactive agent requirement and better hemodynamic stability without increased postoperative complications in patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation.

The study of different dosages of remazolam combined with sufentanil and propofol on painless gastroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Remazolam besylate, a new type of ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine drug, has been less studied in gastroscopy. In this study, we studied the efficacy and safety of remazolam combined with propofol for painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 50 per group): the remazolam 3 mg group (R3 group) and the remazolam 6 mg group (R6 group). Sufentanil, remazolam, and propofol are used to anesthetize the patients, and then, the effects of different dosages of remazolam on these patients are compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vital signs at different times, the dosage of propofol (mg) and additional times, complications, duration of gastroscopy (minute), awakening time (minute), residence time in the resuscitation room (minute), and adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

R3 group systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure are more stable (P < .05); The number of additional propofol in R6 group was less (P < .05). The incidence of hypotension was lower in R3 group, as well as the time of awakening and staying in the resuscitation room were shorter (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Remazolam 3mg combined with sufentanil and propofol have less effect on hemodynamics in painless gastroscopy, and the patients have shorter awakening time.

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosylate combined with propofol in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Hypotension is the most common adverse event under propofol-mediated sedation and is possible to cause varying degrees of damage to patients. Whereas remimazolam has a poorer sedative effect than propofol.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the advantages of the combination of remimazolam tosylate and propofol.

METHODS

304 patients were divided into the remimazolam tosylate group (RT group), the propofol group (P group), and the remimazolam tosylate plus propofol group(R+T group). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes included the results of sedation and recovery. The safety results mainly include the incidence of Hypotension, adverse respiratory events, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hiccup, cough, body movement and bradycardia.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was 56.7% in the P group, 12.6% in the RT group, and 31.3% in the R+P group, three groups of pairwise comparisons showed statistical differences, with P< 0.001. The incidence of body movement was significantly higher in the RT group (26.1%) than in the P group (10.3%) and the R+P group (12.5%), P = 0.004. The endoscopist satisfaction was higher in the P (3.87±0.44) and R+P (3.95±0.22)groups than in the RT(3.53±0.84) group. The incidence of adverse events, in descending order, was P group, RT group, and R+P group (93.8%vs.61.3%vs.42.7%).

CONCLUSION

Co-administration had fewer adverse events than propofol monotherapy, also had a better sedative effect and higher endoscopist satisfaction than remimazolam monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: NCT05429086.

Remimazolam for Sedation During Fiberoptic Intubation in an Adolescent

In specific clinical scenarios, fiberoptic intubation (FOI) may be the preferred technique for airway management and endotracheal intubation. In addition to topical anesthesia of the airway, sedation is frequently necessary, especially in younger patients, to facilitate the procedure. The goal is to facilitate the procedure by providing sedation, anxiolysis, and analgesia with maintenance of spontaneous ventilation. Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine with a short half-life and limited context sensitive half-life that can be titrated by continuous infusion. These novel properties may make it a suitable agent for sedation during FOI of the trachea. We report the novel use of a combination of remimazolam and remifentanil infusions to provide sedation during FOI in an adolescent. The basic pharmacology of remimazolam is presented and previous reports of its use for sedation during FOI are reviewed.

Determination of the 50% and 95% Effective Dose of Remimazolam Combined with Propofol for Intravenous Sedation During Day-Surgery Hysteroscopy

Purpose

Remimazolam has demonstrated the potential as a valuable medication for procedural sedation. However, there were some shortcomings for higher doses of remimazolam during hysteroscopy in spite of less frequent adverse events. The aim of this study was to find the 50% and 95% effective dose (ED₅₀ and ED₉₅) of remimazolam when combined with propofol for intravenous sedation during day-surgery hysteroscopy.

Patients and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned evenly (20 per group) to one of five different dosage of remimazolam: group A (0.05mg/kg), group B (0.075mg/kg), group C (0.1mg/kg), group D (0.125mg/kg) or group E (0.15mg/kg). Intravenous injection of sufentanil 0.1µg/kg was administered before sedative medication. Intravenous anesthesia was commenced with remimazolam. Subsequently, propofol was administered at 1mg/kg and maintained at 6mg/kg/h. Success was defined when the patient did not move during cervical dilation, had sufficient sedation as judged by SE <60 and no requirement for rescue doses. The success rate, induce and average dosage of propofol, the induction time, total surgery time, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded. Estimate of ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ with 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed by probit regression.

Results

The mean (95% CI) values for ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of remimazolam in patients were 0.09 (0.08-0.11) mg/kg and 0.21 (0.16-0.35) mg/kg, respectively. There was no difference in the induction time, total surgery time, and recovery time among groups. No serious adverse events occurred in all patients.

Conclusion

The dose-response effects of remimazolam were evaluated for intravenous sedation during hysteroscopy. A combination of remimazolam and propofol was recommended to produce stabler sedation, reduce the total dosage and have less effect on cardiovascular and respiratory depression.

Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

To improve patient tolerability and satisfaction as well as minimize complications, procedural sedation has been widely used. Propofol is the most widely used agent for induction of anesthesia and sedation by anesthesiologists. With a different mechanism compared to propofol, remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA-A receptor agonist. It is an ester-based benzodiazepine. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for procedure sedation.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy or safety of remimazolam versus propofol. Meta-analysis were conducted using RStudio with "metafor" package with random-effects model.

Results

A total of twelve RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that patients with remimazolam for procedural sedation had lower risk of bradycardia (OR 0.28, 95% CI [0.14-0.57]), hypotension (OR 0.26, 95% CI [0.22-0.32]), and respiratory depression (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.14-0.36]). There was no difference in the risk of developing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.15-2.79]) and dizziness (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.53-1.61]) between the remimazolam and propofol groups. Using remimazolam for procedural sedation is significantly associated with less injection pain compared to propofol (OR 0.06, 95% CI [0.03-0.13]). Regarding the sedation efficacy, there was no difference in sedation success rate or time to loss of consciousness, recover and discharge between the remimazolam and the propofol groups.

Conclusions

Based on our meta-analysis, patients receiving procedural sedation with remimazolam had lower risk of bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression and injection pain compared with propofol. On the other hand, there was no difference in sedation success rate, risk of PONV, dizziness, time to LOC, recovery and discharge between these two sedatives.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022362950.

Comparison of the effects of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients with gastric cancer

Purpose

To compare the effects of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in aged gastric cancer patients.

Methods

From June to December 2022, 104 elderly patients (aged 65-80 years) received laparoscopic radical resection of gastric cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. Using the random number table approach, the patients were separated into three groups: remimazolam (Group R), dexmedetomidine (Group D), and saline (Group C). The primary outcome was the incidence of POCD, and secondary outcomes included TNF-α and S-100β protein concentrations, hemodynamics, VAS scores, anesthesia recovery indicators, and the occurrence of adverse events within 48 h postoperatively.

Results

At 3 and 7 days after surgery, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of POCD, the MMSE and MoCA scores between groups R and D (p > 0.05). However, compared to the saline group, both groups had higher MMSE and MoCA scores and decreased incidences of POCD. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Between group R and group D, there were no statistically significant changes (p > 0.05) in the levels of TNF-α and S-100β protein at the three time points (at the end of the surgery, 1 day later, and 3 days later). Even though neither group's concentration of the two factors was as high as that of the saline group, the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). At all three time points-following induction (T₂), 30 min into the operation (T₃), and at the conclusion of the surgery (T₄)-the heart rate and blood pressure in group R were greater than those in groups D and C. Statistics showed that the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension was highest in group D and lowest in group R (p < 0.05). The dose of propofol and remifentanil, group C > group R > group D. Extubation and PACU residence times did not differ statistically significantly (p > 0.05) between the three groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between groups R and D after 24 h postoperatively (p > 0.05), although both had lower scores than group C, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The VAS scores between the three groups at 72 h (T₆) and 7 days (T₇) were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Adverse reactions such as respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, agitation, drowsiness, and nausea and vomiting had the lowest incidence in group R and the highest incidence in group C (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam is similarly beneficial as dexmedetomidine in lowering the incidence of early POCD in aged patients after radical gastric cancer resection, probably due to reduced inflammatory response.

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.

Determination of the 95% effective dose of remimazolam tosylate in anesthesia induction inhibits endotracheal intubation response in senile patients

Background and Purpose: The prevalence of elderly patients prompts anesthesiologists to determine the optimal dose of medication due to the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this population. The present study aimed to determine the 95% effective dose (ED₉₅) of remimazolam tosylate in anesthesia induction to inhibit endotracheal intubation-related cardiovascular reaction in frail and non-frail senile patients. Methods: A prospective sequential allocation dose-finding study of remimazolam tosylate was conducted on 80 elderly patients who received general anesthesia between May and June 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. The initial dose was 0.3 mg/kg. The blood pressure and heart rate fluctuations during intubation were either <20% (negative cardiovascular response) or ≥20% (positive cardiovascular response). If positive, the dose of the next patient was increased by 0.02 mg/kg, while if negative, it was reduced by 0.02 mg/kg according to the 95:5 biased coin design (BCD). The ED₉₅ and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined using R-Foundation isotonic regression and bootstrapping methods. Results: The ED₉₅ of remimazolam tosylate to inhibit the response during tracheal intubation was 0.297 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.231-0.451 mg/kg) and 0.331 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.272-0.472 mg/kg) in frail and non-frail senile patients, respectively. Conculation and Implications: The CI of the two groups overlap, and no difference was detected in the ED₉₅ of remimazolam tosylate in inhibiting endotracheal intubation-related cardiovascular response in frail and non-frail senile patients. These results suggested that remimazolam tosylate is an optimal anesthesia inducer for all elderly patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2200055709.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol in patients undergoing day surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a novel short-acting GABA (A) receptor agonist that has a rapid recovery from procedural sedation and can be fully reversed by flumazenil. To date, there have been relatively few articles comparing RT and propofol for general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of RT with or without flumazenil compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery.

METHODS

115 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomized into three groups: RT (n = 39), RT + flumazenil (n = 38) and propofol (n = 38). The primary endpoints were anesthesia induction time and time until fully alert. Anesthesia success rate, bispectral index (BIS) values, injection pain, opioid and vasopressor dosages, postoperative recovery profiles and perioperative inflammatory and cognitive changes were assessed. Any adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Induction times were similar among the three groups (P = 0.437), but the median time until fully alert in patients treated with RT was longer than that of the propofol or RT + flumazenil groups (17.6 min vs. 12.3 min vs. 12.3 min, P < 0.001). The three groups had comparable postoperative recovery quality and inflammatory and cognitive state changes (P > 0.05). Smaller percentages of patients who received RT (26.3%) and RT + flumazenil (31.6%) developed hypotension during anesthesia maintenance compared with propofol (68.4%), and consequently less ephedrine (P < 0.001) and phenylephrine (P = 0.015) were needed in the RT group. Furthermore, serum triglyceride levels were lower (P < 0.001) and injection pain was much less frequent in the RT with or without flumazenil groups compared with the propofol group (5.3% vs. 0% vs. 18.4%).

CONCLUSION

RT permits rapid induction and comparable recovery profile compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery, but has a prolonged recovery time without flumazenil. The safety profile of RT was superior to propofol in terms of hypotension and injection pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (Registration date: 19/7/2021; Trial ID: ChiCTR2100048904).

Study Protocol of a Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blind Trial: Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosylate for Sedation in ICU Patients

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies in animal experiments and a phase 1 study suggested remimazolam tosylate as an effective and safe sedation/anesthetic agent. However, the effects and safety dose of remimazolam for light sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients are not clear and should be confirmed in a phase 2 study.

METHODS

Sixty ICU patients requiring sedation treatment and undergoing mechanical ventilation will be enrolled and randomly assigned to a high dose group (HD group, 30 cases) and a low dose group (LD group, 30 cases) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in both groups will be sedated using remimazolam tosylate in a primary dose of 0.08 mg/kg and a range of 0-2.0 mg/kg/h after randomization. Dose adjustment will be made at the range of every 0.1 mg/kg/h in the LD group and 0.2 mg/kg/h in the HD group to maintain the target Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (RASS) at - 2 to + 1. The primary outcome will be the proportion of subjects that meet the following conditions: the time within the range of RASS (- 2 to + 1) accounts for 70% of the study drug administration time; without other rescue treatments. Secondary outcomes including the percentage time to reach the sedation goal; the proportion of subjects receiving rescue sedation and/or analgesic, and the mean dose of rescue drug throughout the study period; duration of mechanical ventilation; recovery time to full consciousness and nursing scores. Evaluations of safety including adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, physical examination, laboratory examination, etc. OUTCOME: The results of this study will provide crucial information for the use of remimazolam tosylate for ICU sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05152303.

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.

Perioperative management and drug selection for sedated/anesthetized patients undergoing MRI examination: A review

In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology has become an indispensable imaging tool owing to significant improvements in MRI that have opened up new diagnostic perspectives. Due to the closed environment, long imaging time, and need to remain still during the examination process, the examiner may cannot cooperate with the completion of the examination of the procedure, which increases the need for deep sedation or anesthesia. Achieving this can sometimes be challenging, especially in the special nontraditional environment of MRI equipment (unfamiliar and narrow spaces, away from patients, strong magnetic fields) and in special populations requiring sedation/anesthesia during examinations, which pose certain challenges for the perioperative anesthesia management of MRI. A simple "checklist" is necessary because it allows the anesthesiologist to become familiar with the particular environment and human and material resources as quickly as possible. For the choice of sedative/anesthetic, the traditional drugs, such as midazolam and ketamine, are still used due to the ease of administration despite their low sedation success rate, prolonged recovery, and significant adverse events. Currently, dexmedetomidine, with respiratory drive preservation, propofol, with high effectiveness and rapid recovery, and sevoflurane, which is mild and nonirritating, are preferred for sedation/anesthesia in children and adults undergoing MRI. Therefore, familiarity with the perioperative management of patient sedation and general anesthesia and drug selection in the MRI environment is critical for successful surgical completion and for the safe and rapid discharge of MRI patients receiving sedation/anesthesia.

Remimazolam Compared to Propofol During Hysteroscopy: A Safety and Efficacy Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is the main drug used to induce sedation for endoscopic procedures, and few drugs had shaken its dominant clinical use for a decade until the development of remimazolam. Remimazolam has been demonstrated to perform well in post-marketing studies on sedation for colonoscopy or other procedures requiring short periods of sedation. This study aimed to establish whether remimazolam was effective and safe for inducing sedation for hysteroscopy.

METHODS

One hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to receive induction with remimazolam or propofol. A dose of 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam was administered. Propofol was started at 2-2.5 mg/kg. Before remimazolam or propofol induction, 1 μg/kg fentanyl was infused. Hemodynamic parameters, vital signs, and bispectral index (BIS) values were measured and adverse events recorded to evaluate safety. We comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of the two drugs by the success rate of induction, fluctuation of vital signs, depth of anesthesia, adverse reactions, recovery time, and other indicators.

RESULTS

Information on 83 patients was successfully recorded and carefully documented. The success rate of sedation in the remimazolam group (group R) was 93%, which was lower than for the propofol group (group P) (100%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of adverse reactions in group R (7.5%) was significantly lower than that in group P (67.4%), and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The fluctuation of vital signs in group P was more severe after induction, especially in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam avoids the injection pain produced by propofol sedation, has a better pre-sedation experience, had the advantage of stable hemodynamics after injection compared to propofol, and a lower respiratory depression rate in the study patients.

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosylate for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery: Study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, positive-controlled clinical trial

Introduction: Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative agent commonly used in general anesthesia, procedural sedation, and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in preschool-age children undergoing elective surgery. Methods and analysis: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind, positive-controlled non-inferior clinical trial, one hundred ninety-two children aged 3-6 years will be randomly allocated as a 3:1 ratio into two groups: Group R with an intravenous dose of remimazolam 0.3 mg/kg for the induction of anesthesia followed by a constant infusion rate of remimazolam 1-3 mg/kg/h to maintain anesthesia, and Group P with an intravenous dose of propofol 2.5 mg/kg for the induction of anesthesia followed by a constant infusion rate of propofol 4-12 mg/kg/h to maintain anesthesia. The primary outcome will be the rate of the successful induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The secondary outcomes will include the time to LoC, the Bispectral Index (BIS) value, awakening time, extubation time, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge time, usage of additional sedative drugs during the induction period, usage of remedial drugs in PACU, emergence delirium, pain in PACU, behavior scores at day 3 after surgery, parental and anesthesiologists' satisfaction, and adverse events. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the ethics review boards at all participating hospitals. The Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (Reference No. LCKY 2020-380, November 13, 2020) is the central ethics committee.

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Etomidate on Hemodynamics in Cardiac Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new ultrashort-acting γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABA_A) agonist, with the characteristics of rapid onset and offset, minimal cardiorespiratory depression. Currently, few studies have compared the effect of RT and etomidate on hemodynamics during anesthesia induction. Here, we aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of different doses of RT and etomidate for anesthesia induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgeries.

Methods

Patients were recruited from January to September 2022 in this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. A total of 117 patients undergoing selective valve replacement surgery were randomly divided into low-dose RT (0.2 mg/kg) group (group LR), high-dose RT (0.3 mg/kg) group (group HR), or etomidate (1.5 mg/kg) group (group E), respectively. The primary outcome was hemodynamic fluctuations (mean arterial pressure fluctuation value [∆MAP]; heart rate fluctuation value [∆HR]) during anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse drug reactions (injection pain and myoclonus) and adverse cardiovascular events, vital signs at different time points and the cumulative doses of vasoactive drugs.

Results

The hemodynamic fluctuations (∆MAP) in group LR and group E were significantly lower than that in group HR. In addition, the incidence of hypotension and the cumulative norepinephrine doses in group E and group LR were also significantly lower than that in group HR. Furthermore, the incidence of injection pain and myoclonus in group LR and group HR were less frequently recorded compared with group E. There were no significant differences in terms of ∆HR, tachycardia, hypertension, severe bradycardia, vital signs at different time points, lactic acid and blood glucose between both groups.

Conclusion

Compared with etomidate, low-dose RT (0.2mg/kg) can not only provide stable hemodynamic parameters but also cause fewer adverse reactions when used for anesthesia induction in patients with cardiac disease.

Remimazolam as the Primary Agent for Sedation During Cardiac Catheterization in Three Patients With Comorbid Cardiac Conduction Abnormalities

General anesthesia or procedural sedation may be required to ensure immobility, facilitate completion of the procedure, and ensure patient comfort during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in the cardiac catheterization suite. Although propofol and dexmedetomidine are two of the more commonly chosen agents, concerns regarding their impact on inotropic, chronotropic or dromotropic function may limit their applicability based on underlying patient comorbid conditions. We present three patients with comorbid conditions involving pacemaker (natural or implanted) function or cardiac conduction which impacted the choice of agent for procedural sedation during procedures in the cardiac catheterization suite. Remimazolam, a novel ester-metabolized benzodiazepine, was used as the primary agent for sedation in an effort to limit detrimental effects on chronotropic and dromotropic function which may be seen with propofol or dexmedetomidine. Remimazolam's potential utility in procedural sedation is discussed, previous reports of its use are reviewed, and dosing algorithms are presented.

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

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia during sedation in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients in the remimazolam group received an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 2.5 mg of remimazolam tosilate, whereas patients in the propofol group received an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients received ASA standard monitoring (heart-rate, non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oxygen saturation) during the entire examination process. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate hypoxemia (defined as 85%≤ SpO₂< 90%, >15s) during the gastrointestinal endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of mild hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂ 90%-94%) and severe hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂< 85%, >15s), the lowest pulse oxygen saturation, airway maneuvers used to correct hypoxemia, patient's hemodynamic as well as other adverse events. Results: 107 elderly patients (67.6 ± 5.7 years old) in the remimazolam group and 109 elderly patients (67.5 ± 4.9 years old) in the propofol group were analyzed. The incidence of moderate hypoxemia was 2.8% in the remimazolam group and 17.4% in the propofol group (relative risk [RR] = 0.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049 to 0.528; p < 0.001). The frequency of mild hypoxemia was less in the remimazolam group, but not statistically significant (9.3% vs. 14.7%; RR = 0.637; 95% CI, 0.303 to 1.339; p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoxemia between the two groups (4.7% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.267 to 2.698; p = 0.781). The median lowest SpO₂ during the examination was 98% (IQR, 96.0%-99.0%) in patients in the remimazolam group, which was significantly higher than in patients in the propofol group (96%, IQR, 92.0%-99.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group received more drug supplementation during endoscopy than patients in the propofol group (p = 0.014). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (2.8% vs. 12.8%; RR = 0.218; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.738; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and prolonged sedation. Conclusion: This study explored the safety of remimazolam compared with propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Despite the increased supplemental doses during sedation, remimazolam improved risk of moderate hypoxemia (i.e., 85%≤ SpO₂ < 90%) and hypotension in elderly patients.