Remimazolam versus propofol for endoscopy sedation in elderly patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Minerva anestesiologica Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI:10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18027-3
Marcela T Terres, Maria L Assis, Carlos B DA Silveira, Sara Amaral
{"title":"Remimazolam versus propofol for endoscopy sedation in elderly patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Marcela T Terres, Maria L Assis, Carlos B DA Silveira, Sara Amaral","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18027-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a new drug, offers advantages such as rapid onset and recovery. The sedation protocols for this population vary, requiring tailored titration of sedatives. The comparative safety of these drugs in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation remains unclear, as previous studies primarily focus on the general population. We aimed to compare the safety profiles of remimazolam and propofol in this context. in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation. Our outcomes were the incidence of adverse effects. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted on all outcomes to assess the adequacy of the sample size in supporting our findings.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>We selected seven RCTs including 1499 patients, of whom 764 (50.96%) were randomized to receive remimazolam. Remimazolam exhibited a significantly lower risk of adverse events, including hypoxemia, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, and injection pain, compared to propofol. Incidences of PONV, dizziness and headache, did not significantly differ between the groups. The findings of the TSA indicated that our sample size was sufficiently large to render further studies inconsequential for most outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that in elderly patients having gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam could be safer than propofol. This population may benefit from remimazolam's lower risk of adverse events, notably hypoxemia and respiratory depression.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":" ","pages":"775-784"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18027-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a new drug, offers advantages such as rapid onset and recovery. The sedation protocols for this population vary, requiring tailored titration of sedatives. The comparative safety of these drugs in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation remains unclear, as previous studies primarily focus on the general population. We aimed to compare the safety profiles of remimazolam and propofol in this context. in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Evidence acquisition: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation. Our outcomes were the incidence of adverse effects. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted on all outcomes to assess the adequacy of the sample size in supporting our findings.

Evidence synthesis: We selected seven RCTs including 1499 patients, of whom 764 (50.96%) were randomized to receive remimazolam. Remimazolam exhibited a significantly lower risk of adverse events, including hypoxemia, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, and injection pain, compared to propofol. Incidences of PONV, dizziness and headache, did not significantly differ between the groups. The findings of the TSA indicated that our sample size was sufficiently large to render further studies inconsequential for most outcomes.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in elderly patients having gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam could be safer than propofol. This population may benefit from remimazolam's lower risk of adverse events, notably hypoxemia and respiratory depression.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雷马唑仑与异丙酚在老年患者内窥镜检查镇静方面的比较:系统综述、荟萃分析和试验序列分析。
简介:程序镇静对消化道内窥镜检查至关重要,异丙酚是常用的镇静剂,但可能导致心血管和呼吸系统副作用。雷马唑仑是一种新药,具有起效快、恢复快等优点。针对这一人群的镇静方案各不相同,需要根据具体情况滴定镇静剂。由于之前的研究主要针对普通人群,因此这些药物在接受手术镇静的老年患者中的安全性对比仍不明确。我们旨在比较瑞美唑仑和异丙酚在这种情况下的安全性:我们在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆中检索了随机对照试验 (RCT),比较了异丙酚和瑞马唑仑对接受程序性镇静的老年患者的疗效。我们的研究结果是不良反应的发生率。我们对所有结果进行了试验序列分析(TSA),以评估样本量是否足以支持我们的研究结果:我们选取了7项研究,共纳入1499名患者,其中764人(50.96%)被随机分配接受雷马唑仑治疗。与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑发生低氧血症、呼吸抑制、低血压、心动过缓和注射疼痛等不良事件的风险明显较低。PONV、头晕和头痛的发生率在两组之间没有明显差异。TSA的结果表明,我们的样本量足够大,因此对大多数结果而言,进一步的研究并不重要:我们的研究结果表明,对于接受消化道内窥镜检查的老年患者,瑞马唑仑可能比丙泊酚更安全。雷马唑仑的不良反应风险较低,尤其是低氧血症和呼吸抑制,可能会使这一人群受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of the organ function as the primary intention of clinical reasoning applied to the critically ill patient. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided rhomboid intercostal block versus serratus plane block in modified radical mastectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Renal resistive index assessment by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography is associated with acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: a prospective observational study. Ultrasonography versus conventional palpation for epidural analgesia in pediatrics undergoing midabdominal urological operations: a randomized clinical trial. Comparison of remimazolam and propofol on postoperative subjective quality of recovery in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1