These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol in patients undergoing day surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Luo W, Sun M, Wan J, Zhang Z, Huang J, Zhang J, Xiong W, Xia L, Xu P, Miao C, Zhang X, Liu M, Zhong J.
    Journal: BMC Anesthesiol; 2023 May 26; 23(1):182. PubMed ID: 37237331.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a novel short-acting GABA (A) receptor agonist that has a rapid recovery from procedural sedation and can be fully reversed by flumazenil. To date, there have been relatively few articles comparing RT and propofol for general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of RT with or without flumazenil compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery. METHODS: 115 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomized into three groups: RT (n = 39), RT + flumazenil (n = 38) and propofol (n = 38). The primary endpoints were anesthesia induction time and time until fully alert. Anesthesia success rate, bispectral index (BIS) values, injection pain, opioid and vasopressor dosages, postoperative recovery profiles and perioperative inflammatory and cognitive changes were assessed. Any adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Induction times were similar among the three groups (P = 0.437), but the median time until fully alert in patients treated with RT was longer than that of the propofol or RT + flumazenil groups (17.6 min vs. 12.3 min vs. 12.3 min, P < 0.001). The three groups had comparable postoperative recovery quality and inflammatory and cognitive state changes (P > 0.05). Smaller percentages of patients who received RT (26.3%) and RT + flumazenil (31.6%) developed hypotension during anesthesia maintenance compared with propofol (68.4%), and consequently less ephedrine (P < 0.001) and phenylephrine (P = 0.015) were needed in the RT group. Furthermore, serum triglyceride levels were lower (P < 0.001) and injection pain was much less frequent in the RT with or without flumazenil groups compared with the propofol group (5.3% vs. 0% vs. 18.4%). CONCLUSION: RT permits rapid induction and comparable recovery profile compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery, but has a prolonged recovery time without flumazenil. The safety profile of RT was superior to propofol in terms of hypotension and injection pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (Registration date: 19/7/2021; Trial ID: ChiCTR2100048904).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]