Postoperative delirium under general anaesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111735
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.

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
雷马唑仑与异丙酚全身麻醉下的术后谵妄:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:雷马唑仑是一种超短效苯二氮卓类药物,在全身麻醉中镇静的临床效果与异丙酚相似。然而,与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑是否会增加术后谵妄(POD)仍不确定。目的:本研究的目的是比较雷马唑仑和异丙酚作为全身麻醉镇静剂时POD的发生率。研究设计:随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和荟萃分析。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和Web of Science数据库,检索截至2024年9月16日发表的前瞻性rct。纳入了报告POD发生率的随机对照试验,并比较了雷马唑仑与异丙酚在全身麻醉中的应用。使用随机效应模型计算优势比(ORs)。主要观察指标为POD的发生率。次要结果包括拔管时间、苏醒时间和术中低血压等不良事件。结果:本荟萃分析共纳入6项随机对照试验,涉及1107例患者。对于主要结局,雷马唑仑组和异丙酚组之间POD的发生率没有差异(OR, 0.92;95%置信区间[CI], 0.58-1.44)。至于次要结果,与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑与术中低血压发生率较低相关(OR, 0.31;95% ci, 0.21-0.46)。其他次要结局无显著差异。在仅纳入老年患者(≥60岁)的3项rct的敏感性分析中,POD的发生率无显著差异(OR, 1.00;95% ci, 0.52-1.93)。结论:与异丙酚相比,围手术期给予雷马唑仑不增加POD,降低术中低血压的风险。需要进一步的大规模随机对照试验来探索雷马唑仑与POD的关系。系统评价方案:PROSPERO CRD42024544122。
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
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Mitochondrial oxygenation monitoring and acute kidney injury risk in cardiac surgery: A prospective cohort study. Implementation of formal neuraxial ultrasound teaching in anesthesiology residency: Resident survey results. Association between intraoperative blood pressure and postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery: A question yet to be resolved. Ferric carboxymaltose with or without phosphate substitution in iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia before elective surgery - The DeFICIT trial. Optimizing neuromuscular block monitoring and reversal: A large-scale quality improvement initiative in a diverse healthcare setting.
×
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