Bon-Wook Koo, Hyo-Seok Na, Sang-Hi Park, Seunguk Bang, Hyun-Jung Shin
{"title":"雷马唑仑和异丙酚用于成人结肠镜检查镇静的安全性和有效性比较:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。","authors":"Bon-Wook Koo, Hyo-Seok Na, Sang-Hi Park, Seunguk Bang, Hyun-Jung Shin","doi":"10.3390/medicina61040646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation during colonoscopy, focusing on hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes included hypotension (primary outcome), bradycardia, respiratory depression, injection pain, sedation onset time, emergence time, procedure success rate, and recovery room stay. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) using random-effects models. <i>Results</i>: Fourteen RCTs with 3290 participants were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), bradycardia (RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), respiratory depression (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), and injection pain (RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], <i>p</i> = 0.0000) compared to propofol. Remimazolam had slower sedation onset (MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], <i>p</i> = 0.0000) but allowed faster emergence (MD: -0.91 min, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.13], <i>p</i> = 0.023) and shorter recovery room stays (MD: -2.20 min, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.17], <i>p</i> = 0.0000). Both drugs had similar procedure success rates. <i>Conclusions</i>: Remimazolam demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared to propofol, reducing risks of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain while enabling faster recovery. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative for colonoscopy, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":49830,"journal":{"name":"Medicina-Lithuania","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Adults Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Bon-Wook Koo, Hyo-Seok Na, Sang-Hi Park, Seunguk Bang, Hyun-Jung Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/medicina61040646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation during colonoscopy, focusing on hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes included hypotension (primary outcome), bradycardia, respiratory depression, injection pain, sedation onset time, emergence time, procedure success rate, and recovery room stay. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) using random-effects models. <i>Results</i>: Fourteen RCTs with 3290 participants were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), bradycardia (RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), respiratory depression (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], <i>p</i> = 0.0000), and injection pain (RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], <i>p</i> = 0.0000) compared to propofol. Remimazolam had slower sedation onset (MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], <i>p</i> = 0.0000) but allowed faster emergence (MD: -0.91 min, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.13], <i>p</i> = 0.023) and shorter recovery room stays (MD: -2.20 min, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.17], <i>p</i> = 0.0000). Both drugs had similar procedure success rates. <i>Conclusions</i>: Remimazolam demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared to propofol, reducing risks of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain while enabling faster recovery. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative for colonoscopy, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"volume\":\"61 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028776/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040646\",\"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":"Medicina-Lithuania","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040646","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
背景和目的:本荟萃分析评估了结肠镜检查期间雷马唑仑与异丙酚镇静的安全性和有效性,重点关注血流动力学和呼吸结果。材料和方法:综合检索CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus和Web of Science到2025年1月,确定了随机对照试验(rct)。结果包括低血压(主要结果)、心动过缓、呼吸抑制、注射疼痛、镇静起效时间、急救时间、手术成功率和恢复室停留时间。使用随机效应模型报告效应大小为相对风险(RR)或平均差异(MD)。结果:纳入14项随机对照试验,共3290名受试者。与异丙酚相比,雷马唑仑显著降低了低血压(RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], p = 0.0000)、心动缓(RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], p = 0.0000)、呼吸抑制(RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], p = 0.0000)和注射疼痛(RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], p = 0.0000)的风险。雷马唑仑的镇静起效较慢(MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], p = 0.0000),但出现速度较快(MD: -0.91 min, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.13], p = 0.023),恢复室停留时间较短(MD: -2.20 min, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.17], p = 0.0000)。两种药物的手术成功率相似。结论:与异丙酚相比,Remimazolam具有更高的安全性和有效性,降低了低血压、心动过缓、呼吸抑制和注射疼痛的风险,同时使恢复更快。这些发现支持雷马唑仑作为结肠镜检查的一种可行的镇静剂,尽管需要进一步的大规模研究来证实这些结果。
Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Adults Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Background and Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation during colonoscopy, focusing on hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes included hypotension (primary outcome), bradycardia, respiratory depression, injection pain, sedation onset time, emergence time, procedure success rate, and recovery room stay. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) using random-effects models. Results: Fourteen RCTs with 3290 participants were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], p = 0.0000), bradycardia (RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], p = 0.0000), respiratory depression (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], p = 0.0000), and injection pain (RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], p = 0.0000) compared to propofol. Remimazolam had slower sedation onset (MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], p = 0.0000) but allowed faster emergence (MD: -0.91 min, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.13], p = 0.023) and shorter recovery room stays (MD: -2.20 min, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.17], p = 0.0000). Both drugs had similar procedure success rates. Conclusions: Remimazolam demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared to propofol, reducing risks of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain while enabling faster recovery. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative for colonoscopy, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these results.
期刊介绍:
The journal’s main focus is on reviews as well as clinical and experimental investigations. The journal aims to advance knowledge related to problems in medicine in developing countries as well as developed economies, to disseminate research on global health, and to promote and foster prevention and treatment of diseases worldwide. MEDICINA publications cater to clinicians, diagnosticians and researchers, and serve as a forum to discuss the current status of health-related matters and their impact on a global and local scale.