10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

          Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

          Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I 2 = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I 2 = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I 2 = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

          Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for general anesthesia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIb/III trial

            This trial was conducted to confirm the non-inferiority of remimazolam versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in surgical patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A placebo- and midazolam-controlled phase I single ascending-dose study evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam (CNS 7056): Part I. Safety, efficacy, and basic pharmacokinetics.

              A new benzodiazepine, remimazolam, metabolized by tissue esterases to an inactive compound, CNS 7054, has been developed to permit a fast onset, a short and more predictable duration of sedative action, and a more rapid recovery profile than with currently available benzodiazepines. We report on the safety and efficacy of the first human study. A phase I, single-center, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, randomized, single-dose escalation study was conducted. Up to 10 cohorts of healthy subjects were scheduled to receive a single 1-minute IV infusion of remimazolam, midazolam, or placebo. In the 10 possible cohorts, remimazolam doses were from 0.01 to 0.35 mg/kg. In cohorts 1 to 3, 6 subjects received remimazolam and 1 placebo. From cohort 4 onward, an additional 3 subjects in each cohort received midazolam (0.075 mg/kg). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were measured. A stop criterion of loss of consciousness for >5 minutes in >50% of subjects was predefined. The stop criterion was reached in cohort 9 (0.30 mg/kg remimazolam) so that 81 subjects were enrolled. Remimazolam was well tolerated in all dose cohorts, and no serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Three AEs of mild (Spo(2) 85%-88%) hemoglobin desaturation (2 in the remimazolam groups and 1 in the midazolam group) resolved spontaneously, and 1 AE of moderate hemoglobin desaturation (Spo(2) 75%) resolved with a chin lift in the highest remimazolam dose group. No supplemental oxygen or manual ventilation was required. Vital signs remained stable throughout, although there was an increase in heart rate 2 minutes postdose for both remimazolam and midazolam. There were no reports of hypo- or hypertension. The pharmacokinetic behavior of remimazolam was linear and its systemic clearance approximately 3 times that of midazolam. Clearance was essentially independent of body weight. A rapid onset and dose-dependent sedation was observed after administration of remimazolam at 0.05 mg/kg and higher. Remimazolam (0.075 to 0.20 mg/kg) induced peak sedation levels similar to or higher than those achieved with midazolam (0.075 mg/kg). Median recovery times after approximately equieffective doses of remimazolam (0.10 and 0.15 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.075 mg/kg) were 10 and 40 minutes, respectively. Remimazolam provided sedation with rapid onset and offset, and was well tolerated. There was no supplemental oxygen or ventilation required. On the basis of these data, further studies on the potential utility of remimazolam for sedation/anesthesia are warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front. Med.
                Frontiers in Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-858X
                26 July 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 655042
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Anesthesiology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture , Enshi City, China
                [2] 2Department of Anesthesiology, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College , Beijing, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Tony Tham, Ulster Hospital, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Somchai Amornyotin, Mahidol University, Thailand; Ali Alali, Mubarak Al Kabeer Hospital, Kuwait

                *Correspondence: Fuxia Yan yanfuxia@ 123456sina.com

                This article was submitted to Gastroenterology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

                ‡These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fmed.2021.655042
                8350069
                34381792
                d9fc9763-c27f-4ea7-8e98-30abd02bba16
                Copyright © 2021 Zhu, Wang, Yuan, Li, Jia, Zhang, Yan and Wang.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 January 2021
                : 25 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 32, Pages: 10, Words: 6089
                Categories
                Medicine
                Systematic Review

                remimazolam,endoscopy,procedural sedation,adult,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,175

                Cited by30

                Most referenced authors693