Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy in Japanese patients: A propensity score matching analysis

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation with midazolam and remimazolam for colorectal endoscopy.

Methods

This single-center, two-arm, post-hoc analysis of the REM-IICTJP01 study investigated the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation. We enrolled 40 and 208 patients who underwent colonoscopy under remimazolam and midazolam sedation, respectively, during the same period. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the colonoscopy until discharge. The secondary outcomes included the time from the end of the colonoscopy until awakening, dosage, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was employed to eliminate the effect of confounding factors.

Results

Thirty-seven patients in each group were matched. After propensity matching, the time to awakening after colonoscopy was 28.0 (13.0-37.0) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-0) min in the remimazolam group; moreover, the time till discharge was 40.0 (35.0-46.5) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-5.0) min in the remimazolam group, both of which were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group (p < 0.01). The number of additional doses was 0 (0-0) and 2 (1-3) in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. The total dose was 2.0 (2.0-3.5) and 6.0 (5.0-7.0) mg in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Remimazolam yielded significantly faster times to awakening and discharge safely compared to midazolam.

Remimazolam for procedural sedation: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

BACKGROUND

Midazolam and propofol are frequently used for procedural sedation. Remimazolam may provide a more controllable sedation with fewer adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the sedation success rate and respiratory and cardiovascular complications of remimazolam versus placebo and other sedatives in adults undergoing procedural sedation.

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses (TSA), and GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection from their inception to 22 June 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs allocating participants undergoing procedural sedation to remimazolam versus placebo or any active comparator.

RESULTS

We included 63 trials randomising 13 953 participants. All included trial results were judged to be at high risk of bias. The sedation success rate was similar with remimazolam versus active comparators, relative risk (RR) 1.04, [97.5% confidence interval (CI), 0.96 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.95 to 1.18], P   =  0.26, GRADE: very low. Subgroup analyses indicated that remimazolam versus midazolam increased sedation success rate, while the risks were similar with remimazolam versus comparators. Remimazolam versus active comparators decreased the risk of respiratory complications, RR 0.47, (97.5% CI, 0.36 to 0.61; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.35 to 0.61), P  < 0.01; and cardiovascular complications, RR 0.46, (97.5% CI, 0.37 to 0.56; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.38 to 0.57), P  < 0.01. Subgroup analyses indicated that remimazolam versus propofol reduced respiratory and cardiovascular complications, while the risks were similar versus midazolam.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam seems to provide a similar sedation success rate as other active comparators (propofol, ciprofol, midazolam, dexmedetomidine, etomidate), although subgroup analyses indicated that remimazolam increased sedation success rate compared to midazolam. Remimazolam compared to propofol may decrease the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. The certainty of the evidence was very low to low, and firm conclusions could not be drawn.

Effect of combination of remimazolam and sevoflurane on elderly patients' recovery quality from general anesthesia after laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Remimazolam toluene sulfonic acid is a short-acting benzodiazepine primarily studied for intravenous anesthesia. To date, few studies have focused on the effects of the combination of remimazolam and inhalation anesthesia or its impact on postoperative recovery. Our study aims to investigate the influence of remimazolam combined with sevoflurane for general anesthesia maintenance on postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A total of 109 patients, aged 60 to 80 years old, scheduled for laparoscopic gallbladder or hernia surgery were randomly divided into two groups: remimazolam group (Group R) and remimazolam-sevoflurane combination group (Group S). Group R had remimazolam for anesthesia maintenance, while Group S received remimazolam and sevoflurane. Both groups followed the same induction protocol, with bispectral index (BIS) maintained between 40 and 60 during surgery. The primary outcome was assessed with the Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 score. The secondary outcomes included loss of consciousness (LoC), perioperative hemodynamic variables, extubation time, and the incidence of postoperative adverse events. During the study, 7 patients were lost to follow-up, and finally, 102 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The data will be analyzed in a modified full analysis set.

RESULTS

Group S had higher QoR-15 and physical comfort scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD3 compared to Group R (135.0[8.0] vs. 132.0[11.0], P = 0.004; 143.0[6.0] vs. 141.0[7.0], P = 0.007). Despite using less remifentanil (P = 0.021), Group S had a significantly longer extubation time (P = 0.048). There were no significant differences in induction time, perioperative hemodynamic variables, or postoperative adverse events between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Combining remimazolam with sevoflurane improves postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. This approach ensures optimal anesthesia depth and sedation while minimizing adverse events and complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200065332. Date of registration: 02/11/2022.

Determining ED90 of Flumazenil for Selective Respiratory Distress Improvement Using Remimazolam During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with remimazolam may develop respiratory distress during the procedure. In these cases, low doses of flumazenil improved respiratory distress without completely reversing sedation, which is a novel phenomenon. This study aimed to explore the ED90 of flumazenil to selectively improve respiratory distress in patients with MAC treated with remimazolam.

METHODS

Flumazenil dose determination followed a biased-coin up-and-down design. Starting with a dose of 5 mcg, if respiratory distress improved, the biased-coin method was used to give the same dose in the next patient with a probability of 8/9, and a decreased dose of 5 mcg in the next patient with a probability of 1/9. Any improvement in respiratory distress within 30 s of flumazenil administration was recorded. After the procedure, patients were asked whether they had any memory recall during the procedure. Centered isotonic regression was used to determine the ED90 of flumazenil.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included in the study. The estimated ED90 was 76.72 mcg (95% CI: 68.07-102.62). Memory recall occurred in two of thirteen patients (15%) near the ED90 dose range (75 mcg and 80 mcg). None of the patients developed major postoperative complications (bleeding, perforation, or aspiration) within the 2-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that the ED90 of flumazenil for effectively alleviating respiratory distress in patients undergoing MAC with remimazolam was 76.7 mcg, without reversing consciousness. These findings provide valuable guidance for the care of patients undergoing sedation.

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

AIM

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Comparison of Hypotension, Bradycardia, and Hypoxia Incidence between the Use of Remimazolam and Other Sedative Agents during Colonoscopy Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Remimazolam is a newly developed sedative agent. The results of previous meta-analyses highlight the strengths of remimazolam for use during colonoscopy procedures. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate whether, in patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures (P), the use of remimazolam (I) compared with other sedative agents (C) could lead to a greater incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia (O). (2) Methods: In the following study, we conducted an extensive literature search using two electronic databases. We included all randomized control trials, which involved a comparison of the hemodynamic changes in remimazolam versus a placebo and other sedative agents during colonoscopy procedures. Data extraction, data synthesis, and the assessment of risk of bias were performed by the authors. (3) Results: A total of seven articles met our inclusion criteria. The combined analysis of the selected studies revealed no statistically significant difference in hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxia incidence when comparing remimazolam and the control group. However, in comparison with the group administered propofol, the pooled data of the selected studies revealed statistically significant differences in the incidence of both hypotension and bradycardia but not hypoxia. (4) Conclusions: Our findings indicate that there is no significant difference in hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia incidence when comparing remimazolam and other agents. Nevertheless, when comparing the remimazolam and propofol groups, the results demonstrated statistically significant differences in the incidence of both hypotension and bradycardia but not hypoxia.

A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA: REST trial design

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, but its safety and efficacy during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) remains undetermined. The REST trial (NCT06275594) will be a prospective randomized study of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA with conscious sedation. The primary aim is to evaluate whether remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during EBUS-TBNA compared to real-world midazolam and on-label midazolam.

METHODS

The REST trial will recruit 330 patients from four university hospitals with mediastinal lesions suspected of being lung cancer who are eligible for EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. The participants will be randomized into groups using remimazolam, real-world midazolam, and on-label midazolam (US prescribing information dosage) to perform EBUS-TBNA for procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be procedural success using composite measures.

DISCUSSION

The REST trial will prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam during EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. It will provide information for optimizing sedation modalities and contribute to practical benefits in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06275594). Prospectively registered on 15 February 2024.

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABAAlpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from 15 May to 20 December 2023 for relevant publications which compared the outcomes reported with the newly approved remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing surgery. Relevant reported adverse drug events were the endpoints of this study. The statistical analysis was carried out using the latest version of the RevMan software. Data analysis was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with a total number of 1897 participants were included in this analysis; 1104 participants received remimazolam and 793 participants received propofol. The risks for hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58; P = 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P = 0.05), bradycardia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P = 0.001), pain at injection site (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.56; P = 0.01), and total adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P = 0.00001) were significantly lower with remimazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46; P = 0.93), dizziness (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.57; P = 0.20), psychiatric symptoms (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45-2.67; P = 0.85), and respiratory depression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.24-2.76; P = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Our current analysis showed that the newly approved remimazolam was apparently associated with significantly fewer adverse drug events in comparison to propofol for GA in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, this new drug should be further studied and more research with larger population sizes should be carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

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.

Remimazolam for sedation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and GRADE approach

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation aims to facilitate a successful diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The pharmacokinetic properties and pharmacodynamic effects need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal sedative. Midazolam and propofol are frequently employed. However, they are associated with respiratory depression with increasing dosage. Also, midazolam has a potentially unpredictable pharmacodynamic response and propofol may cause hypotension and injection site pain. Remimazolam may provide a superior alternative due to its rapid pharmacodynamic profile and insignificant circulatory effects.

METHODS

This protocol employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful clinical effects of remimazolam versus placebo or other sedatives in adult patients requiring sedation in relation to a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or due to other circumstances. Three primary outcomes are identified: Sedation success rate, respiratory complications, and hemodynamic complications. Six secondary outcomes are identified: among these are quality of recovery and serious adverse events. All randomized trials are included. The search strategy includes six major biomedical databases. Literature screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Risk of systemic error will be assessed with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Risk of random error will be assessed with trial sequential analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by appropriate statistical tests. The certainty of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. A "Summary of Findings" table will be presented with our primary and secondary outcome results.

DISCUSSION

The systematic review with up-to-date methodology outlined in this protocol investigates the clinical effects of remimazolam in relation to procedural sedation. The results may guide clinicians in the clinical use of remimazolam.

The safety and efficacy between remimazolam and propofol in intravenous anesthesia of endoscopy operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol.

AIM

This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile.

RESULTS

Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.12, P <0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.73, P =0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47, P =0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01, P =0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: -0.43 to 1.80, P =0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.23, P =0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.

Efficacy and Safety of 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).

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.

Optimization of procedural sedation and analgesia during atrial fibrillation ablation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This mini-review is aimed to provide an overview and discuss procedural sedation and analgesia for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with focus at qualification of staff, patient evaluation, monitoring, medication and postprocedural care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sleep-disordered breathing is highly prevalent in patients with AF. Impact of often used STOP-BANG questionnaire to detect sleep-disordered breathing in AF patients is limited due to its restricted validity. Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used drug in sedation, but is shown not to be superior to propofol in sedation during AF-ablation. Alternatively use of remimazolam has characteristics that makes it a promising drug for minimal to moderate sedation for AF-ablation. High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has shown to reduce the risk of desaturation in adults receiving procedural sedation and analgesia.

SUMMARY

An optimal sedation strategy during AF ablation should be based on AF patient characteristics, the level of sedation needed, the procedure (duration and type of ablation) and the education and experience of the sedation provider. Patient evaluation and post procedural care are part of sedation care. More personalized care based on use of various sedation strategies and types of drugs as related to the type of AF-ablation is the way to further optimize care.

Effect of intraoperative remimazolam on postoperative sleep quality in elderly patients after total joint arthroplasty: a randomized control trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of intraoperative remimazolam sedation on postoperative sleep quality in elderly patients after total joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

Between May 15, 2021 and March 26, 2022, 108 elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) who received total joint arthroplasty under neuraxial anesthesia were randomized into remimazolam group (a loading dose of 0.025-0.1 mg/kg and followed by an infusion rate of 0.1-1.0 mg/kg/h till end of surgery) or routine group (sedation was given on patient's requirement by dexmedetomidine 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h). Primary outcome was the subjective sleep quality at surgery night which was evaluated by Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Secondary outcomes included RCSQ scores at postoperative first and second nights and numeric rating scale pain intensity within first 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

RCSQ score at surgery night was 59 (28, 75) in remimazolam group which was comparable with 53 (28, 67) in routine group (median difference 6, 95% CI - 6 to 16, P = 0.315). After adjustment of confounders, preoperative high Pittsburg sleep quality index was associated worse RCSQ score (P = 0.032), but not remimazolam (P = 0.754). RCSQ score at postoperative first night [69 (56, 85) vs. 70 (54, 80), P = 0.472] and second night [80 (68, 87) vs. 76 (64, 84), P = 0.066] were equivalent between two groups. Safety outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative remimazolam did not significantly improve postoperative sleep quality in elderly patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. But it is proved to be effective and safe for moderate sedation in these patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

ChiCTR2000041286 ( www.chictr.org.cn ).

The use of remimazolam versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. Methods: The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Results: Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, I2 = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, p = 0.0007, I2 = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, p = 0.57, I2 = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Conclusion: Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.

Effect of remimazolam on the incidence of delirium after transcatheter aortic valve implantation under general anesthesia: a retrospective exploratory study

PURPOSE

Delirium after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) should be prevented because it is associated with worse patient outcomes. Perioperative administration of benzodiazepines is a risk factor for postoperative delirium; however, the association between remimazolam, a newer ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine for general anesthesia, and postoperative delirium remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether remimazolam administration during TAVI under general anesthesia affected the incidence of postoperative delirium.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study recruited all adult patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI (TF-TAVI) under general anesthesia between March 2020 and May 2022. Patients were divided into the remimazolam (R) and propofol (P) groups according to the sedative used for anesthesia. In the R group, all patients received flumazenil after surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 3 days after surgery. Factors associated with delirium after TF-TAVI were examined by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were included in the final analysis (R group, n = 40; P group, n = 58). The incidence of postoperative delirium was significantly lower in the R group than in the P group (8% vs. 26%, p = 0.032). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that remimazolam (odds ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.80, p = 0.024) was independently associated with the incidence of postoperative delirium, even after adjustment for age, sex, preoperative cognitive function, history of stroke, and TF-TAVI approach.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam may benefit TF-TAVI in terms of postoperative delirium; however, its usefulness must be further evaluated in extensive prospective studies.

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

Efficacy of Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Remimazolam is made by combining midazolam and remifentanil as an alternative to conventional sedatives. To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam and midazolam. A search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrial.gov from inception till December 26, 2021, for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of remimazolam during the above-mentioned procedure. There was no restriction of language. A quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed. The systemic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline statement. Three randomized controlled trials involving 539 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam during colonoscopy, remimazolam results in reduced need for top-up doses (RR= 3.45, 95% CI=1.07 to 11.14; P=0.04, I²=84%). The need for rescue medication was reduced with remimazolam as compared to midazolam (RR=2.42, 95%CI=1.04 to 5.61; P=0.04, I²=96%). There was no significant difference observed between the two drugs on completion of colonoscopy and the overall procedural sedation, but the sensitivity analysis favored remimazolam over midazolam for procedural sedation (RR=4.08, 95%CI=2.35 to 7.09; P<0.00001, I²=39%). This analysis demonstrates the advantages of remimazolam over other agents and sets a platform for relevant future studies.