A Comparison of Remimazolam versus Propofol on Blood Pressure Changes During Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yan-Ying Xiao,Hai-Ding Zou,Xiu-Nan Qin,Rong Zhu,Ru-Ping Dai
{"title":"A Comparison of Remimazolam versus Propofol on Blood Pressure Changes During Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Yan-Ying Xiao,Hai-Ding Zou,Xiu-Nan Qin,Rong Zhu,Ru-Ping Dai","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nIntraoperative hypotension is the most common adverse event in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is usually attributed to the vasodilatory effect of the anesthetic. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the impact of remimazolam versus propofol on blood pressure changes during the therapeutic ERCP procedure.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nAdult patients scheduled for elective therapeutic ERCP were randomized to receive either remimazolam or propofol anesthesia (40 patients in each group). The primary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) during induction and the area under the baseline (AUB), calculated as the blood pressure below baseline multiplied by the duration, throughout the procedure. These measures, respectively, indicated the severity of blood pressure decrease during anesthesia induction and the overall impact of blood pressure changes throughout the procedure. Any incidences of hypotension, defined as MAP <65 mm Hg for at least 1 minute, were recorded. The recovery time and any adverse events were also reported.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe change in MAP after induction was smaller in the remimazolam group compared to the propofol group (-7.5 [-14.0 to 0] mm Hg vs -25.0 [-33.8 to -14.3] mm Hg), with a median difference of 17.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.0-22.0; P <.001). The AUB in the remimazolam group was less than in the propofol group (-373 [-82 to -854] mm Hg·min vs -705 [-272 to -1100] mm Hg·min), with a median difference of 255 mm Hg·min (95% CI, 29-477; P =.021). The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower for remimazolam than propofol (5% vs 30%; P =.006). There were no serious adverse events in either group.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nRemimazolam may be considered as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia during therapeutic ERCP procedures, with the potential advantage of stable hemodynamics.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Intraoperative hypotension is the most common adverse event in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is usually attributed to the vasodilatory effect of the anesthetic. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the impact of remimazolam versus propofol on blood pressure changes during the therapeutic ERCP procedure. METHODS Adult patients scheduled for elective therapeutic ERCP were randomized to receive either remimazolam or propofol anesthesia (40 patients in each group). The primary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) during induction and the area under the baseline (AUB), calculated as the blood pressure below baseline multiplied by the duration, throughout the procedure. These measures, respectively, indicated the severity of blood pressure decrease during anesthesia induction and the overall impact of blood pressure changes throughout the procedure. Any incidences of hypotension, defined as MAP <65 mm Hg for at least 1 minute, were recorded. The recovery time and any adverse events were also reported. RESULTS The change in MAP after induction was smaller in the remimazolam group compared to the propofol group (-7.5 [-14.0 to 0] mm Hg vs -25.0 [-33.8 to -14.3] mm Hg), with a median difference of 17.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.0-22.0; P <.001). The AUB in the remimazolam group was less than in the propofol group (-373 [-82 to -854] mm Hg·min vs -705 [-272 to -1100] mm Hg·min), with a median difference of 255 mm Hg·min (95% CI, 29-477; P =.021). The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower for remimazolam than propofol (5% vs 30%; P =.006). There were no serious adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS Remimazolam may be considered as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia during therapeutic ERCP procedures, with the potential advantage of stable hemodynamics.
雷马唑仑与丙泊酚对治疗性内镜逆行胰胆管造影术中血压变化的影响比较:随机对照试验。
背景术中低血压是内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)中最常见的不良反应,通常归因于麻醉剂的血管扩张作用。本随机对照试验的目的是评估治疗性ERCP过程中瑞马唑仑和异丙酚对血压变化的影响。方法将计划接受治疗性ERCP的成人患者随机分为两组,一组接受瑞马唑仑麻醉,另一组接受异丙酚麻醉(每组 40 名患者)。主要结果包括诱导过程中平均动脉压 (MAP) 的变化,以及整个手术过程中的基线下面积 (AUB)(计算方法为低于基线的血压乘以持续时间)。这些指标分别表示麻醉诱导期间血压下降的严重程度和整个手术过程中血压变化的总体影响。任何低血压发生率(定义为 MAP <65 mm Hg 持续至少 1 分钟)都会被记录下来。结果与异丙酚组相比,瑞马唑仑组诱导后的 MAP 变化较小(-7.5 [-14.0 to 0] mm Hg vs -25.0 [-33.8 to -14.3] mm Hg),中位差异为 17.0 mm Hg(95% 置信区间 [CI],12.0-22.0;P <.001)。瑞马唑仑组的AUB低于异丙酚组(-373 [-82 to -854] mm Hg-min vs -705 [-272 to -1100] mm Hg-min),中位差值为255 mm Hg-min (95% CI, 29-477; P =.021)。瑞马唑仑的低血压发生率明显低于异丙酚(5% vs 30%;P =.006)。结论在治疗性ERCP手术中,瑞马唑仑可考虑作为异丙酚的替代品进行全身麻醉,其潜在优势是血流动力学稳定。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信