Shi Haobing, Zhang Jinyuan, Hu Zhiqiang, Hou Qianhao, Hu Qianhua, Dai Zhiguang, Zhou Wenjuan, Qi Dingwu, Li Yuling, Wang Qing, Wang Xiangrui, Liao Lijun, Qian Shuwen
Department of Pain Management, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Nov 20;11:1434767. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1434767. eCollection 2024.
Remimazolam is a new type of ultra-short-effect intravenous anesthetic, that may provide adequate sedation for endoscopy while causing less cardiovascular or respiratory disturbance than propofol. The aim of this clinical study was to compare the efficacy and safety of two different doses of remimazolam with propofol for sedation during colonoscopy.
225 subjects, aged 18 to 80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiology physical status I-III, were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. All the subjects were randomly assigned to three groups, Low-Rem group (low dose remimazolam, 0.15 mg/kg, iv, = 75), High-Rem group (high dose remimazolam, 0.2 mg/kg, iv, = 75), and Propofol group (propofol 2 mg/kg, iv, = 75). Every individual in this trial was given nalbuphine hydrochloride (0.2 mg/kg, iv) before administration of remimazolam or propofol. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Haemodynamic parameters and adverse events were recorded to evaluate safety. Satisfaction of sedation from patients, anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists were also recorded.
The success rate of colonoscopy procedure was 100% in both High-Rem and Propofol groups, but it was 89% in Low-Rem group ( < 0.05). Furthermore, the induction time of anesthesia was shorter in Propofol group, when compared to the Low-Rem group and the High-Rem group ( < 0.05). The recovery time in Low-Rem group, High-Rem group, and Propofol group was 2.33, 2.43, and 3.21 min ( < 0.05) respectively, and the time of discharge was 25.00, 25.01, and 27.56 min ( < 0.05) respectively. Simultaneously, the incidence of adverse events such as hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression in the remimazolam groups were significantly lower than that in the propofol group. No significant differences were observed among the three groups in Ramsay scale, BPS-NI scale, and Limb movement classification. Moreover, patients, anesthesiologists, and gastroenterologists were all satisfied with the sedation process.
Remimazolam can be used safely and effectively for colonoscopy. 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam and propofol have the same sedation success rate and more stable hemodynamics and fewer side effects than propofol.
ChiCTR2100054053.
瑞马唑仑是一种新型超短效静脉麻醉药,在内镜检查中可能提供充分的镇静作用,且与丙泊酚相比,引起的心血管或呼吸干扰较小。本临床研究的目的是比较两种不同剂量的瑞马唑仑与丙泊酚用于结肠镜检查镇静的疗效和安全性。
225例年龄在18至80岁之间、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级为I - III级的受试者计划接受结肠镜检查。所有受试者随机分为三组,低剂量瑞马唑仑组(低剂量瑞马唑仑,0.15 mg/kg,静脉注射,n = 75)、高剂量瑞马唑仑组(高剂量瑞马唑仑,0.2 mg/kg,静脉注射,n = 75)和丙泊酚组(丙泊酚2 mg/kg,静脉注射,n = 75)。本试验中的每位受试者在给予瑞马唑仑或丙泊酚之前均给予盐酸纳布啡(0.2 mg/kg,静脉注射)。主要结局是镇静成功率。记录血流动力学参数和不良事件以评估安全性。还记录了患者、麻醉医师和胃肠病学家对镇静的满意度。
高剂量瑞马唑仑组和丙泊酚组结肠镜检查的成功率均为100%,但低剂量瑞马唑仑组为89%(P < 0.05)。此外,与低剂量瑞马唑仑组和高剂量瑞马唑仑组相比,丙泊酚组的麻醉诱导时间更短(P < 0.05)。低剂量瑞马唑仑组、高剂量瑞马唑仑组和丙泊酚组的恢复时间分别为2.33、2.43和3.21分钟(P < 0.05),出院时间分别为25.00、25.01和27.56分钟(P < 0.05)。同时,瑞马唑仑组低血压、心动过缓和呼吸抑制等不良事件的发生率显著低于丙泊酚组。三组在Ramsay评分、BPS - NI评分和肢体运动分类方面未观察到显著差异。此外,患者、麻醉医师和胃肠病学家对镇静过程均满意。
瑞马唑仑可安全有效地用于结肠镜检查。0.2 mg/kg瑞马唑仑与丙泊酚的镇静成功率相同,血流动力学更稳定,副作用比丙泊酚更少。
ChiCTR2100054053。