比较基于咪唑安定和异丙酚的手术全静脉麻醉的主观恢复质量:一项荟萃分析

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kuo-Chuan Hung, Wei-Ting Wang, Wei-Cheng Liu, Chih-Wei Hsu, Yen-Ta Huang, Jheng-Yan Wu, I-Wen Chen
{"title":"比较基于咪唑安定和异丙酚的手术全静脉麻醉的主观恢复质量:一项荟萃分析","authors":"Kuo-Chuan Hung, Wei-Ting Wang, Wei-Cheng Liu, Chih-Wei Hsu, Yen-Ta Huang, Jheng-Yan Wu, I-Wen Chen","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02660-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that has been recently introduced as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia. While both agents have been compared in terms of safety and efficacy, their relative effects on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remain unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on subjective QoR in surgical patients who underwent general anesthesia. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 28, 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing remimazolam and propofol in terms of postoperative QoR. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. QoR score on postoperative day (POD) 1 (primary outcome), QoR scores on PODs 2–3, QoR dimensions, time to loss of consciousness, other recovery characteristics, and rescue analgesia requirement were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses. This meta-analysis included 13 studies published between 2022 and 2024 involving 1,418 patients. QoR was evaluated using either the QoR-15 (10 studies) or QoR-40 (3 studies) questionnaire. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in the QoR scores on POD 1 (standardized mean difference: 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 0.20, 0.23, P = 0.88, I2 = 73%) and PODs 2–3 between remimazolam and propofol. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in QoR dimensions, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and time to extubation as well as in the risks of agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients administered remimazolam exhibited slower anesthetic induction (mean difference (MD): 32.27 s) but faster recovery of consciousness (MD: − 1.60 min) than those administered propofol. Moreover, remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of rescue analgesia requirement in the PACU (risk ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.89, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%) but not in the ward. Remimazolam is a potential alternative to propofol for general anesthesia as it offers similar QoR to the latter and has advantages in terms of consciousness recovery and immediate postoperative analgesia requirement.","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing subjective quality of recovery between remimazolam- and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for surgical procedures: a meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Kuo-Chuan Hung, Wei-Ting Wang, Wei-Cheng Liu, Chih-Wei Hsu, Yen-Ta Huang, Jheng-Yan Wu, I-Wen Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02660-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that has been recently introduced as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia. While both agents have been compared in terms of safety and efficacy, their relative effects on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remain unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on subjective QoR in surgical patients who underwent general anesthesia. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 28, 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing remimazolam and propofol in terms of postoperative QoR. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. QoR score on postoperative day (POD) 1 (primary outcome), QoR scores on PODs 2–3, QoR dimensions, time to loss of consciousness, other recovery characteristics, and rescue analgesia requirement were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses. This meta-analysis included 13 studies published between 2022 and 2024 involving 1,418 patients. QoR was evaluated using either the QoR-15 (10 studies) or QoR-40 (3 studies) questionnaire. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in the QoR scores on POD 1 (standardized mean difference: 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 0.20, 0.23, P = 0.88, I2 = 73%) and PODs 2–3 between remimazolam and propofol. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in QoR dimensions, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and time to extubation as well as in the risks of agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients administered remimazolam exhibited slower anesthetic induction (mean difference (MD): 32.27 s) but faster recovery of consciousness (MD: − 1.60 min) than those administered propofol. Moreover, remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of rescue analgesia requirement in the PACU (risk ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.89, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%) but not in the ward. Remimazolam is a potential alternative to propofol for general anesthesia as it offers similar QoR to the latter and has advantages in terms of consciousness recovery and immediate postoperative analgesia requirement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02660-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02660-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

雷马唑仑是一种新型超短效苯二氮卓类药物,最近被引入作为异丙酚的替代品用于全身麻醉。虽然两种药物在安全性和有效性方面都进行了比较,但它们对术后恢复质量(QoR)的相对影响仍不明确。因此,本荟萃分析旨在比较瑞马唑仑和异丙酚对接受全身麻醉的手术患者主观恢复质量的影响。研究人员检索了 Medline、Embase、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 中从开始到 2024 年 5 月 28 日的所有文献,以确定在术后 QoR 方面比较瑞马唑仑和异丙酚的随机对照试验。科克伦偏倚风险工具(RoB 2)用于评估研究质量。使用随机效应荟萃分析评估了术后第 1 天 (POD) 的 QoR 评分(主要结果)、第 2-3 天的 QoR 评分、QoR 维度、意识丧失时间、其他恢复特征和镇痛抢救需求。该荟萃分析纳入了 2022 年至 2024 年间发表的 13 项研究,涉及 1418 名患者。QoR采用QoR-15(10项研究)或QoR-40(3项研究)问卷进行评估。汇总结果显示,POD 1 的 QoR 评分无明显差异(标准化平均差异为 0.02,95% 置信区间为 0.01):0.02,95% 置信区间 [CI]:- 0.20, 0.23, P = 0.88, I2 = 73%)和 POD 2-3 的 QoR 分数在瑞马唑仑和异丙酚之间无明显差异。此外,在QoR维度、麻醉后监护室(PACU)停留时间、拔管时间以及躁动和术后恶心呕吐风险方面均未观察到明显差异。与使用异丙酚的患者相比,使用雷马唑仑的患者麻醉诱导速度较慢(平均差(MD):32.27 秒),但意识恢复速度较快(MD:- 1.60 分钟)。此外,在 PACU(风险比:0.62,95% CI:0.43,0.89,P = 0.009,I2 = 0%)中,雷马唑仑与较低的镇痛抢救需求风险相关,但在病房中则不相关。雷马唑仑是异丙酚全身麻醉的潜在替代品,因为它的QoR与异丙酚相似,而且在意识恢复和术后即时镇痛需求方面具有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing subjective quality of recovery between remimazolam- and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for surgical procedures: a meta-analysis
Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that has been recently introduced as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia. While both agents have been compared in terms of safety and efficacy, their relative effects on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remain unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on subjective QoR in surgical patients who underwent general anesthesia. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 28, 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing remimazolam and propofol in terms of postoperative QoR. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. QoR score on postoperative day (POD) 1 (primary outcome), QoR scores on PODs 2–3, QoR dimensions, time to loss of consciousness, other recovery characteristics, and rescue analgesia requirement were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses. This meta-analysis included 13 studies published between 2022 and 2024 involving 1,418 patients. QoR was evaluated using either the QoR-15 (10 studies) or QoR-40 (3 studies) questionnaire. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in the QoR scores on POD 1 (standardized mean difference: 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 0.20, 0.23, P = 0.88, I2 = 73%) and PODs 2–3 between remimazolam and propofol. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in QoR dimensions, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and time to extubation as well as in the risks of agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients administered remimazolam exhibited slower anesthetic induction (mean difference (MD): 32.27 s) but faster recovery of consciousness (MD: − 1.60 min) than those administered propofol. Moreover, remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of rescue analgesia requirement in the PACU (risk ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.89, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%) but not in the ward. Remimazolam is a potential alternative to propofol for general anesthesia as it offers similar QoR to the latter and has advantages in terms of consciousness recovery and immediate postoperative analgesia requirement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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