{"title":"Efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam for outpatient dental sedation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial","authors":"Bing Liu, Peijuan Wang, Wei Zhu, Cong Yu, Liyong Jia, Xiaotong Shi, Zhi Wang, Ting Xu, Qian Li, Xudong Yang, Juzhao Zhao, Zhoupeng Zheng, Yong Li, Na Xing, Tiejun Zhang, Nan Zhao, Weifang Shan, Qiumiao Chen, Lina Zhang, Yanyu Liu, Yuyan Sun, Zijian Guo, Qiuyuan Hong, Sulin Tang, Xiaofei Qi, Yanna Li, Li Wang, Zhaohua Ji, Rui Lu, Hui Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s44254-025-00160-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Intravenous sedation is commonly used in routine dental procedures, however, existing agents are associated with limitations in recovery profiles and postoperative complications. Remimazolam has emerged as a promising alternative to address these clinical challenges. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of titrated remimazolam compared to midazolam concerning both efficacy and safety endpoints in dental extraction procedures.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted across 13 centers in China from September 2021 to July 2023. A total of 612 eligible patients scheduled for dental extraction were randomized to receive either remimazolam (group R, initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg with 2 mg top-ups; n = 307) or midazolam (group M, initial dose of 0.05 mg/kg with 1 mg top-ups; n = 305). The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 6%. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and 24-h postoperative complications.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Remimazolam demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, achieving success rates of 99.0% compared to 96.1% for midazolam (adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval, 2.81 [−1.29 to 6.91]; adjusted <i>P</i> = 0.179). Patients in group R recovered faster and were discharged earlier than patients in group M (5 [3, 6] vs. 7 [4, 10] min, <i>P</i> < 0.001; and 46 [38, 53] vs. 52 [44, 60] min, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Additionally, patients in group R exhibited a significantly lower incidence of 24-h postoperative adverse reactions (4.6% vs. 12.1%; adjusted <i>P</i> = 0.030).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Titrated remimazolam demonstrates non-inferior sedation success when compared to midazolam while offering a superior recovery profile and improved postoperative safety. These findings indicate that remimazolam may serve as a more advantageous sedative option for outpatient dental procedures, especially in environments requiring rapid patient turnover.</p><h3>Trial registration</h3><p>The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100050822, URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133251, Principal investigator: Hui Zhang, date of registration: September 4, 2021).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100082,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-025-00160-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-025-00160-z","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
Purpose
Intravenous sedation is commonly used in routine dental procedures, however, existing agents are associated with limitations in recovery profiles and postoperative complications. Remimazolam has emerged as a promising alternative to address these clinical challenges. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of titrated remimazolam compared to midazolam concerning both efficacy and safety endpoints in dental extraction procedures.
Methods
This randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted across 13 centers in China from September 2021 to July 2023. A total of 612 eligible patients scheduled for dental extraction were randomized to receive either remimazolam (group R, initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg with 2 mg top-ups; n = 307) or midazolam (group M, initial dose of 0.05 mg/kg with 1 mg top-ups; n = 305). The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 6%. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and 24-h postoperative complications.
Results
Remimazolam demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, achieving success rates of 99.0% compared to 96.1% for midazolam (adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval, 2.81 [−1.29 to 6.91]; adjusted P = 0.179). Patients in group R recovered faster and were discharged earlier than patients in group M (5 [3, 6] vs. 7 [4, 10] min, P < 0.001; and 46 [38, 53] vs. 52 [44, 60] min, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients in group R exhibited a significantly lower incidence of 24-h postoperative adverse reactions (4.6% vs. 12.1%; adjusted P = 0.030).
Conclusions
Titrated remimazolam demonstrates non-inferior sedation success when compared to midazolam while offering a superior recovery profile and improved postoperative safety. These findings indicate that remimazolam may serve as a more advantageous sedative option for outpatient dental procedures, especially in environments requiring rapid patient turnover.
Trial registration
The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100050822, URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133251, Principal investigator: Hui Zhang, date of registration: September 4, 2021).