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 : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-04 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":"298-312"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","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":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.

雷马唑仑用于程序性镇静:荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述。
背景:咪达唑仑和异丙酚常用于程序性镇静。雷马唑仑可能提供更可控的镇静,副作用更少。目的:比较雷马唑仑与安慰剂及其他镇静剂在成人手术镇静中的镇静成功率及呼吸和心血管并发症。设计:对随机对照试验(RCTs)进行系统评价,包括荟萃分析、试验序列分析(TSA)和GRADE证据确定性评估。数据来源:我们检索了Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL和Web of Science Core Collection,从它们成立到2024年6月22日。资格标准:随机对照试验将接受程序性镇静的参与者分配给雷马唑仑与安慰剂或任何活性比较物。结果:我们纳入63项试验,随机纳入13953名受试者。所有纳入的试验结果被判定为具有高偏倚风险。雷马唑仑与活性对照药镇静成功率相似,相对危险度(RR) 1.04,[97.5%置信区间(CI), 0.96 ~ 1.14;tsa校正CI (0.95 ~ 1.18), P = 0.26, GRADE:非常低。亚组分析表明,雷马唑仑与咪达唑仑相比,镇静成功率更高,而雷马唑仑与比较物的风险相似。与活性对照药相比,雷马唑仑降低了呼吸系统并发症的风险,RR 0.47, (97.5% CI, 0.36 ~ 0.61;结论:雷马唑仑的镇静成功率似乎与其他活性比较物(异丙酚、环丙酚、咪达唑仑、右美托咪定、依托咪酯)相似,尽管亚组分析表明,雷马唑仑比咪达唑仑更能提高镇静成功率。与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑可降低呼吸和心血管并发症的风险。证据的确定性非常低,无法得出确切的结论。
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
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).
×
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