Guo Zijian, Wang Xiaodong, Wang Likuan, Liu Yun, Yang Xudong
Attending, Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing, PR China.
Chief, Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing, PR China.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Jan;81(1):8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.09.008. Epub 2022 Sep 16.
Midazolam is a classic sedative drug. The sedative effect of remimazolam has not been demonstrated in ambulatory oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). This study aimed to measure whether remimazolam can achieve the same sedation effects compared with midazolam, but with a faster recovery and fewer adverse reactions in outpatients undergoing ambulatory OMS.
This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study of 40 patients who underwent ambulatory OMS at Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China, between April 2021 and June 2021. The patients were randomly divided into a midazolam group (Group M) and a remimazolam group (Group R). The success rate of sedation, which was defined as completion of the operation with no rescue sedative medication, was the primary outcome. In this study, bispectral index and modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation value, intraoperative adverse events, time to discharge, and the number of additional doses of sedative were compared. Descriptive, comparative analyses were conducted.
Forty patients were eligible for this study, and the final sample size was 40 (including 25 males, average age was 29). The success rate of sedation in Group R was statistically significantly higher than that in Group M (Group R vs Group M: 95% [19/20] vs 70% [14/20], P = .037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.681 to 0.913). The median number of additional doses of the medications per 5 minutes in Group R was lower than that in Group M (0.51 [0.19, 0.71] vs 0.82 [0.51, 1.25], P = .006, 95% CI: 0.013 to 0.583). Group R showed a higher bispectral index number (93.9 ± 4.6 vs 86.6 ± 7.2, P = .001, 95% CI: 3.451 to 11.149) at the end of the surgery and a higher modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (4.70 ± 0.47 vs 4.05 ± 0.68, P = .001, 95% CI: 0.273 to 1.027) after 5 minutes at the recovery room compared with Group M.
The success rate of remimazolam is higher than that of midazolam. The use of remimazolam is effective for sedation of patients undergoing ambulatory OMS.
咪达唑仑是一种经典的镇静药物。瑞马唑仑在门诊口腔颌面外科手术(OMS)中的镇静效果尚未得到证实。本研究旨在衡量瑞马唑仑与咪达唑仑相比是否能达到相同的镇静效果,但在接受门诊OMS的患者中恢复更快且不良反应更少。
这是一项前瞻性、随机、对照、单中心研究,于2021年4月至2021年6月在中国北京的北京大学口腔医院对40例行门诊OMS的患者进行。患者被随机分为咪达唑仑组(M组)和瑞马唑仑组(R组)。镇静成功率定义为无需使用抢救性镇静药物即可完成手术,这是主要结局指标。本研究比较了脑电双频指数和改良的观察者警觉/镇静评分、术中不良事件、出院时间以及镇静药物追加剂量。进行了描述性、对比性分析。
40例患者符合本研究条件,最终样本量为40例(包括25例男性,平均年龄29岁)。R组的镇静成功率在统计学上显著高于M组(R组 vs M组:95%[19/20] vs 70%[14/20],P = 0.037,95%置信区间[CI]:0.681至0.913)。R组每5分钟药物追加剂量的中位数低于M组(0.51[0.19,0.71] vs 0.82[0.51,1.25],P = 0.006,95%CI:0.013至0.583)。与M组相比,R组在手术结束时脑电双频指数更高(93.9±4.6 vs 86.6±7.2,P = 0.001,95%CI:3.451至11.149),在恢复室5分钟后改良的观察者警觉/镇静评分更高(4.70±0.47 vs 4.05±0.68,P = 0.001,95%CI:0.273至1.027)。
瑞马唑仑的成功率高于咪达唑仑。瑞马唑仑用于门诊OMS患者的镇静有效。