Finding the ideal sedative: a non‐inferiority study of remimazolam vs propofol in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires an ideal sedative that provides a predictable action duration and meets safety requirements. We compared the efficacies and safeties of remimazolam and propofol in patients who had undergone ERCP.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, single‐blind, single‐center study, we compared the performances of remimazolam and propofol for inpatient ERCP. Study medications were administered under the supervision of an endoscopist. One hundred and ten patients scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomly assigned to receive remimazolam or propofol. The primary endpoint was a composite of successful completion of the procedure and no requirement for rescue medication. Secondary endpoints included sedation efficacy, recovery time, and adverse events.ResultsOf the 110 patients randomized, 108 underwent sedation, and ERCP (53 received remimazolam and 55 propofol). The primary endpoint was met for remimazolam and propofol in 100% of patients in both arms. Incidences and frequencies of emergent adverse events, including desaturation, requiring treatment were comparable in both arms. However, ERCP was started sooner in the propofol arm (mean, 63.18 ± 16.56 s) than in the remimazolam arm (75.23 ± 32.27 s; P‐value = 0.02). Time to full alertness after ERCP was also significantly shorter in the propofol arm (304.18 ± 146.25 vs 448.34 ± 224.09 s; P‐value <0.001).ConclusionRemimazolam is not inferior to propofol in achieving successful ERCP completion without rescue medication. Incidences of adverse events were comparable. Remimazolam is a safe and effective alternative to propofol for ERCP sedation, expanding options for clinicians and improving patient outcomes.