Postoperative delirium under general anaesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Masafumi Suga, Jun Yasuhara, Atsuyuki Watanabe, Hisato Takagi, Toshiki Kuno, Takeshi Nishimura, Shinichi Ijuin, Takuya Taira, Akihiko Inoue, Satoshi Ishihara, Adrian Pakavakis, Neil Glassford, Yahya Shehabi
{"title":"Postoperative delirium under general anaesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Masafumi Suga, Jun Yasuhara, Atsuyuki Watanabe, Hisato Takagi, Toshiki Kuno, Takeshi Nishimura, Shinichi Ijuin, Takuya Taira, Akihiko Inoue, Satoshi Ishihara, Adrian Pakavakis, Neil Glassford, Yahya Shehabi","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has similar clinical effects to propofol for sedation in general anaesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether remimazolam could increase postoperative delirium (POD) compared with propofol.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of our study was to compare the incidence of POD between remimazolam and propofol as sedative agents in general anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective RCTs published through September 16, 2024. RCTs reporting the incidence of POD and comparing remimazolam with propofol for general anaesthesia were included. Odds ratio (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. The secondary outcomes included time to extubation, awakening time, and adverse events such as intraoperative hypotension.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six RCTs involving 1107 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For the primary outcome, the incidence of POD did not differ between the remimazolam and propofol groups (OR, 0.92; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.44). Regarding the secondary outcomes, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol (OR, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.21-0.46). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis on three RCTs including only older patients (≥60 years old), there was no significant difference in the incidence of POD (OR, 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.52-1.93).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Perioperative remimazolam administration did not increase POD and reduced the risk of intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to explore the association of remimazolam and POD. Systematic review protocol: PROSPERO CRD42024544122.</p>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"101 ","pages":"111735"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111735","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has similar clinical effects to propofol for sedation in general anaesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether remimazolam could increase postoperative delirium (POD) compared with propofol.
Objectives: The purpose of our study was to compare the incidence of POD between remimazolam and propofol as sedative agents in general anaesthesia.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective RCTs published through September 16, 2024. RCTs reporting the incidence of POD and comparing remimazolam with propofol for general anaesthesia were included. Odds ratio (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. The secondary outcomes included time to extubation, awakening time, and adverse events such as intraoperative hypotension.
Results: A total of six RCTs involving 1107 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For the primary outcome, the incidence of POD did not differ between the remimazolam and propofol groups (OR, 0.92; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.44). Regarding the secondary outcomes, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol (OR, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.21-0.46). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis on three RCTs including only older patients (≥60 years old), there was no significant difference in the incidence of POD (OR, 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.52-1.93).
Conclusion: Perioperative remimazolam administration did not increase POD and reduced the risk of intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to explore the association of remimazolam and POD. Systematic review protocol: PROSPERO CRD42024544122.
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.