Laiying Zhou , Jingcheng Zou , Xue Li , Xiaozhuo Zuo , Mengting Gu , Kai Sun , Wen Fan , Yuanyuan Yao , Min Yan
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine for patients undergoing flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A randomized, clinical trial","authors":"Laiying Zhou , Jingcheng Zou , Xue Li , Xiaozhuo Zuo , Mengting Gu , Kai Sun , Wen Fan , Yuanyuan Yao , Min Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><div>Remimazolam's benefits for patients undergoing painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy remain uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine in flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FFB).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Randomized controlled trial.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>University hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>Between April 2021 and September 2022, patients undergoing painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy were recruited.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>The patients were randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to remimazolam-remifentanil group (RR group) or dexmedetomidine-remifentanil group (DR group).</div></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><div>The primary outcome was the procedure interruption rate during bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, resuscitation time, rescue medication usage rate and dose, satisfaction scores of patients and bronchoscopists, operation-related complications, and adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><div>A total of 363 patients were included for final analysis. The interruption rates of bronchoscopy were 8.2 % in the RR group and 39.2 % in the DR group (<em>P</em> < 0.05). The rescue medication usage rate (4.4 % vs. 38.7 %, <em>P</em> < 0.05) and dose (1.51 ± 8.15 mg vs. 13.17 ± 18.86 mg, <em>P</em> < 0.05) were lower in the RR group compared with the DR group. The incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower in the RR group than in the DR group (14.3 % vs. 44.2 %, <em>P</em> < 0.05). Hemodynamic changes in patients in the DR group were significant, with longer recovery time and lower satisfaction scores for both inpatients and bronchoscopists (<em>P</em> < 0.05), compared with the RR group. However, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of operation-related complications (<em>P</em> > 0.05) except for postoperative dizziness, which was more common in the DR group (<em>P</em> < 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Remimazolam is effective and safe in painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy. It allows a lower procedure interruption rate and incidence of oxygen desaturation, providing better hemodynamic stability compared to dexmedetomidine.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 111677"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024003064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study objective
Remimazolam's benefits for patients undergoing painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy remain uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine in flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FFB).
Design
Randomized controlled trial.
Setting
University hospital.
Patients
Between April 2021 and September 2022, patients undergoing painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy were recruited.
Interventions
The patients were randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to remimazolam-remifentanil group (RR group) or dexmedetomidine-remifentanil group (DR group).
Measurements
The primary outcome was the procedure interruption rate during bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, resuscitation time, rescue medication usage rate and dose, satisfaction scores of patients and bronchoscopists, operation-related complications, and adverse events.
Main results
A total of 363 patients were included for final analysis. The interruption rates of bronchoscopy were 8.2 % in the RR group and 39.2 % in the DR group (P < 0.05). The rescue medication usage rate (4.4 % vs. 38.7 %, P < 0.05) and dose (1.51 ± 8.15 mg vs. 13.17 ± 18.86 mg, P < 0.05) were lower in the RR group compared with the DR group. The incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower in the RR group than in the DR group (14.3 % vs. 44.2 %, P < 0.05). Hemodynamic changes in patients in the DR group were significant, with longer recovery time and lower satisfaction scores for both inpatients and bronchoscopists (P < 0.05), compared with the RR group. However, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of operation-related complications (P > 0.05) except for postoperative dizziness, which was more common in the DR group (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Remimazolam is effective and safe in painless flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy. It allows a lower procedure interruption rate and incidence of oxygen desaturation, providing better hemodynamic stability compared to dexmedetomidine.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained.
The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.