The safety and efficacy between remimazolam and propofol in intravenous anesthesia of endoscopy operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Zhao Mei-ji1,Hu Hai-feng1,Li Xin-lei2,Li Xiao-ming3,Wang Da-chuan4,Kuang Ming-jie1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopedics

2. Department of Anesthesiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University

3. Department of Orthopedics, Traditional Chinese Medicine-Western Medicine Hospital of Cangzhou City, Hebei Province, People’s Republic of China

4. The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong

Abstract

Background: Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol. Aim: This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery. Method: MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile. Results: Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03–0.12, P<0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28–0.73, P=0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08–0.47, P=0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=−0.02, 95% CI: −0.04 to −0.01, P=0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=−0.01, 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.01, P=0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: −0.43 to 1.80, P=0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: −0.58 to 0.23, P=0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome. Conclusion: Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Medicine,Surgery

Reference48 articles.

1. Is propofol the optimal sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopy?;Stogiannou;Acta Gastroenterol Belg,2018

2. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endoscopy: a meta-analysis;Zhang;Exp Ther Med,2016

3. Endoscopy in the elderly;Travis;Am J Gastroenterol,2012

4. Uterine distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy;Abdallah;Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2021

5. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues;Triantafillidis;World J Gastroenterol,2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3