Suppr超能文献

瑞米唑仑与丙泊酚用于全身麻醉诱导和维持:外科人群苏醒期躁动风险的系统评价和荟萃分析

Remimazolam vs. propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of emergence agitation risk in surgical populations.

作者信息

Song Jian-Li, Ye Yong, Hou Ping, Li Qiang, Lu Bin, Chen Guan-Yu

机构信息

Departments of Anesthesiology, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

Departments of Anesthesiology, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

J Clin Anesth. 2025 Apr;103:111815. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111815. Epub 2025 Mar 22.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The association between remimazolam and emergence agitation (EA) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the relative risk of developing EA when using remimazolam vs. propofol in induction and maintenance of general anesthesia.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of EA. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) within 7 days after surgery, emergence time, extubation time, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 19 randomized controlled trials with 3031 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of EA (RR = 0.82; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.65; p = 0.585) between remimazolam and propofol. Likewise, there were no significant intergroup differences in POD incidence, extubation time, emergence time, or length of PACU stay. Remimazolam exhibited superior hemodynamic stability, with a significantly reduced incidence of postinduction hypotension and intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol, while maintaining comparable safety profiles in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), intraoperative awareness, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analysis revealed that without routine postoperative antagonist administration, remimazolam was associated with prolonged extubation and length of PACU stay relative to propofol. In contrast, following antagonizing with flumazenil, the extubation and emergence times of the remimazolam group were shorter than those of the propofol group, while comparable PACU discharge time was maintained.

CONCLUSION

The use of remimazolam for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia does not lead to a higher occurrence of EA in adult patients undergoing surgery, relative to propofol. However, in patients with ASA III-IV, remimazolam may be linked to a greater risk of POD than propofol.

摘要

引言

瑞马唑仑与苏醒期躁动(EA)之间的关联尚不清楚。本荟萃分析旨在比较在全身麻醉诱导和维持过程中使用瑞马唑仑与丙泊酚时发生EA的相对风险。

方法

我们检索了PubMed、clinicaltrials.gov、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆和Embase数据库,以识别符合纳入标准的研究。主要结局是EA的发生率。次要结局包括术后7天内术后谵妄(POD)的发生率、苏醒时间、拔管时间、麻醉后监护病房(PACU)停留时间以及不良事件。

结果

荟萃分析共纳入19项随机对照试验,涉及3031例患者。瑞马唑仑与丙泊酚之间的EA发生率无统计学显著差异(RR = 0.82;95%置信区间[CI],0.41 - 1.65;p = 0.585)。同样,POD发生率、拔管时间、苏醒时间或PACU停留时间在组间也无显著差异。与丙泊酚相比,瑞马唑仑表现出更好的血流动力学稳定性,诱导后低血压和术中低血压的发生率显著降低,同时在术后恶心呕吐(PONV)、术中知晓和低氧血症方面保持相当的安全性。亚组分析显示,在不常规给予术后拮抗剂的情况下,与丙泊酚相比,瑞马唑仑与拔管时间延长和PACU停留时间延长有关。相比之下,在使用氟马西尼拮抗后,瑞马唑仑组的拔管和苏醒时间比丙泊酚组短,同时保持了相当的PACU出院时间。

结论

与丙泊酚相比,在接受手术的成年患者中,使用瑞马唑仑进行全身麻醉诱导和维持不会导致更高的EA发生率。然而,在ASA III - IV级患者中,瑞马唑仑可能比丙泊酚导致更高的POD风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验