Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.

In Jung Kim, Geun Joo Choi, Hyoung-Chul Oh, Hyun Kang
{"title":"Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.","authors":"In Jung Kim, Geun Joo Choi, Hyoung-Chul Oh, Hyun Kang","doi":"10.1111/den.15078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is challenging owing to patient comorbidities and procedural complexity. Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, has potential safety benefits. We aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for ERCP sedation through a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol in ERCP sedation. Sensitivity analysis and TSA were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs (965 participants) were included. In these trials, remimazolam significantly reduced hypoxia (risk ratio [RR], 0.522; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.348-0.783; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE], high), hypotension (RR, 0.507; 95% CI 0.396-0.649; GRADE, high), and bradycardia (RR, 0.475; 95% CI 0.308-0.732; GRADE, high). However, it increased tachycardia (RR, 3.363; 95% CI, 1.466-7.714; GRADE, moderate) and body movement (RR, 2.744; 95% CI, 1.216-6.193; GRADE, moderate). Delirium and agitation (RR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.157-2.179; GRADE, moderate) and completion rate (RR, 1.009; 95% CI, 0.97-1.042; GRADE, moderate) were comparable. Recovery quality was higher in remimazolam group (mean difference, 1.541; 95% CI, 0.057-3.024; GRADE, low). Other outcomes, including induction and recovery times, were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Remimazolam demonstrated superior safety profile than propofol for ERCP sedation, significantly reducing hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with high certainty evidence and TSA confirmation. Despite the higher incidence of tachycardia and body movement associated with remimazolam, the completion rate and risk of delirium or agitation were similar for both sedatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.15078","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

Objectives: Sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is challenging owing to patient comorbidities and procedural complexity. Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, has potential safety benefits. We aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for ERCP sedation through a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Methods: We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol in ERCP sedation. Sensitivity analysis and TSA were also performed.

Results: Five RCTs (965 participants) were included. In these trials, remimazolam significantly reduced hypoxia (risk ratio [RR], 0.522; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.348-0.783; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE], high), hypotension (RR, 0.507; 95% CI 0.396-0.649; GRADE, high), and bradycardia (RR, 0.475; 95% CI 0.308-0.732; GRADE, high). However, it increased tachycardia (RR, 3.363; 95% CI, 1.466-7.714; GRADE, moderate) and body movement (RR, 2.744; 95% CI, 1.216-6.193; GRADE, moderate). Delirium and agitation (RR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.157-2.179; GRADE, moderate) and completion rate (RR, 1.009; 95% CI, 0.97-1.042; GRADE, moderate) were comparable. Recovery quality was higher in remimazolam group (mean difference, 1.541; 95% CI, 0.057-3.024; GRADE, low). Other outcomes, including induction and recovery times, were similar.

Conclusion: Remimazolam demonstrated superior safety profile than propofol for ERCP sedation, significantly reducing hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with high certainty evidence and TSA confirmation. Despite the higher incidence of tachycardia and body movement associated with remimazolam, the completion rate and risk of delirium or agitation were similar for both sedatives.

雷马唑仑和异丙酚在内镜逆行胆管造影中镇静作用的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析与试验序列分析。
目的:由于患者合并症和手术复杂性,内窥镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)的镇静治疗具有挑战性。雷马唑仑是一种新型苯二氮卓类药物,具有潜在的安全益处。我们旨在通过荟萃分析和试验序贯分析(TSA)系统地比较雷马唑仑和异丙酚用于ERCP镇静的有效性和安全性。方法:我们检索了Ovid-MEDLINE、Ovid-Embase、Cochrane Central和谷歌Scholar中比较雷马唑仑和异丙酚ERCP镇静疗效和安全性的随机对照试验(rct)。并进行敏感性分析和TSA。结果:纳入5项随机对照试验(965名受试者)。在这些试验中,雷马唑仑可显著降低缺氧(风险比[RR], 0.522;95%置信区间[CI] 0.348-0.783;推荐、评估、发展和评价分级[GRADE],高)、低血压(RR, 0.507;95% ci 0.396-0.649;GRADE,高)和心动过缓(RR, 0.475;95% ci 0.308-0.732;年级,高)。然而,它增加了心动过速(RR, 3.363;95% ci, 1.466-7.714;GRADE,中度)和身体运动(RR, 2.744;95% ci, 1.216-6.193;年级,温和的)。谵妄和躁动(RR, 0.586;95% ci, 0.157-2.179;GRADE,中等)和完成率(RR, 1.009;95% ci, 0.97-1.042;GRADE,中等)具有可比性。雷马唑仑组恢复质量较高(平均差1.541;95% ci, 0.057-3.024;年级,低)。其他结果,包括诱导和恢复时间,相似。结论:雷马唑仑在ERCP镇静方面的安全性优于异丙酚,可显著减少缺氧、低血压和心动过缓,具有高确定性证据和TSA确认。尽管与雷马唑仑相关的心动过速和身体运动发生率较高,但两种镇静剂的完成率和谵妄或躁动的风险相似。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信