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

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Anaesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002126
Lasse Pingel, Mathias Maagaard, Casper D Tvarnø, Sandra Sorenson, Shaheer Bukhari, Lars Peter Kloster Andersen, Jakob Hessel Andersen, Ole Mathiesen
{"title":"Remimazolam for procedural sedation: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.","authors":"Lasse Pingel, Mathias Maagaard, Casper D Tvarnø, Sandra Sorenson, Shaheer Bukhari, Lars Peter Kloster Andersen, Jakob Hessel Andersen, Ole Mathiesen","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Midazolam and propofol are frequently used for procedural sedation. Remimazolam may provide a more controllable sedation with fewer adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the sedation success rate and respiratory and cardiovascular complications of remimazolam versus placebo and other sedatives in adults undergoing procedural sedation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses (TSA), and GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection from their inception to 22 June 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs allocating participants undergoing procedural sedation to remimazolam versus placebo or any active comparator.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002126","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

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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
期刊最新文献
Subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for epigastric cardiac pacemaker operation: A randomised controlled trial. Comparison between ultrasound-guided intertransverse process and erector spinae plane blocks for breast cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Postoperative lymphopaenia as a risk factor for postoperative infections in cancer surgery: A prospective multicentre cohort study (the EVALYMPH study). A novel cricoid pressure sensor device enhances the efficacy of oesophageal occlusion during Sellick's manoeuvre: A randomised controlled trial. Co-administration of dexmedetomidine with total intravenous anaesthesia in carotid endarterectomy reduces requirements for propofol and improves haemodynamic stability: A single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial.
×
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