Comparison of remimazolam and propofol on postoperative subjective quality of recovery in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ru-Ting Xue, Ran-Hong Sun, Min Wang, Hao Guo, Jie Chang
{"title":"Comparison of remimazolam and propofol on postoperative subjective quality of recovery in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Ru-Ting Xue, Ran-Hong Sun, Min Wang, Hao Guo, Jie Chang","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18395-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Remimazolam, a recently approved drug for surgical sedation and general anesthesia, has been compared with propofol in previous studies regarding its efficacy as a general anesthetic. However, the question of whether remimazolam demonstrates non-inferiority to propofol in postoperative subjective quality of recovery (QoR) among patients under general anesthesia has not been definitively answered.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of remimazolam and propofol. The primary outcome assessed was the quality of recovery (QoR-15, QoR-40) on postoperative days (POD) 1-3. Secondary outcomes included the duration until consciousness recovery, extubation time, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and length of hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>The analysis involved 10 RCTs with a total of 1077 patients. Remimazolam showed comparable QoR scores to propofol on POD1 (nine trials, standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.15 to 0.44, P=0.34), POD 2 (two trials, SMD: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.36, P=0.5), and POD 3 (four trials, SMD: 0.17, 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.85, P=0.62). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in recovery time for consciousness, extubation duration, incidence of PONV, or length of hospital stay between the remimazolam and propofol groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remimazolam is similar to propofol in terms of postoperative subjective QoR for patients receiving general anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18395-2","RegionNum":3,"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

Introduction: Remimazolam, a recently approved drug for surgical sedation and general anesthesia, has been compared with propofol in previous studies regarding its efficacy as a general anesthetic. However, the question of whether remimazolam demonstrates non-inferiority to propofol in postoperative subjective quality of recovery (QoR) among patients under general anesthesia has not been definitively answered.

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of remimazolam and propofol. The primary outcome assessed was the quality of recovery (QoR-15, QoR-40) on postoperative days (POD) 1-3. Secondary outcomes included the duration until consciousness recovery, extubation time, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and length of hospital stay.

Evidence synthesis: The analysis involved 10 RCTs with a total of 1077 patients. Remimazolam showed comparable QoR scores to propofol on POD1 (nine trials, standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.15 to 0.44, P=0.34), POD 2 (two trials, SMD: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.36, P=0.5), and POD 3 (four trials, SMD: 0.17, 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.85, P=0.62). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in recovery time for consciousness, extubation duration, incidence of PONV, or length of hospital stay between the remimazolam and propofol groups.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is similar to propofol in terms of postoperative subjective QoR for patients receiving general anesthesia.

比较瑞马唑仑和异丙酚对全身麻醉患者术后主观恢复质量的影响:随机对照试验荟萃分析。
简介雷马唑仑是最近获批的一种用于手术镇静和全身麻醉的药物,在以往的研究中,人们曾将其与异丙酚作为一种全身麻醉药的疗效进行过比较。然而,在全身麻醉患者的术后主观恢复质量(QoR)方面,瑞马唑仑是否不劣于异丙酚,这一问题尚未得到明确回答:系统检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中所有已发表的比较雷马唑仑和异丙酚疗效的随机对照试验 (RCT)。评估的主要结果是术后第 1-3 天(POD)的恢复质量(QoR-15、QoR-40)。次要结果包括意识恢复持续时间、拔管时间、术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)发生率以及住院时间:分析涉及 10 项 RCT,共有 1077 名患者参与。雷马唑仑在 POD1 的 QoR 评分与异丙酚相当(9 项试验,标准化平均差 [SMD]:0.14,95% 置信区间 [CI]:-0.15 至 0.44,P=0.34)、POD 2(两项试验,SMD:0.09,95% CI:-0.18 至 0.36,P=0.5)和 POD 3(四项试验,SMD:0.17,95% CI:-0.51 至 0.85,P=0.62)。分组分析和敏感性分析证实了这些结果的稳健性。此外,在意识恢复时间、拔管持续时间、PONV发生率或住院时间方面,雷马唑仑组与异丙酚组之间均未观察到明显差异:结论:就全身麻醉患者的术后主观QoR而言,雷马唑仑与异丙酚相似。
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
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
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