Koo Bon-Wook, Na Hyo-Seok, Park Sang-Hi, Bang Seunguk, Shin Hyun-Jung
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam 13620, Republic of Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Apr 1;61(4):646. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040646.
: This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation during colonoscopy, focusing on hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes. : A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes included hypotension (primary outcome), bradycardia, respiratory depression, injection pain, sedation onset time, emergence time, procedure success rate, and recovery room stay. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) using random-effects models. : Fourteen RCTs with 3290 participants were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], = 0.0000), bradycardia (RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], = 0.0000), respiratory depression (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], = 0.0000), and injection pain (RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], = 0.0000) compared to propofol. Remimazolam had slower sedation onset (MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], = 0.0000) but allowed faster emergence (MD: -0.91 min, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.13], = 0.023) and shorter recovery room stays (MD: -2.20 min, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.17], = 0.0000). Both drugs had similar procedure success rates. : Remimazolam demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared to propofol, reducing risks of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain while enabling faster recovery. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative for colonoscopy, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these results.
本荟萃分析评估了瑞马唑仑与丙泊酚在结肠镜检查期间用于镇静的安全性和有效性,重点关注血流动力学和呼吸结局。对截至2025年1月的CENTRAL、Embase、PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行全面检索,确定了随机对照试验(RCT)。结局包括低血压(主要结局)、心动过缓、呼吸抑制、注射痛、镇静起效时间、苏醒时间、手术成功率和恢复室停留时间。效应量采用随机效应模型报告为相对风险(RR)或均值差(MD)。纳入了14项随机对照试验,共3290名参与者。与丙泊酚相比,瑞马唑仑显著降低了低血压风险(RR:0.44,95%CI[0.39,0.51],P=0.0000)、心动过缓风险(RR:0.36,95%CI[0.25,0.53],P=0.0000)、呼吸抑制风险(RR:0.32,95%CI[0.2(此处原文有误,应为0.22),0.45],P=0.0000)和注射痛风险(RR:0.14,95%CI[0.09,0.24],P=0.0000)。瑞马唑仑的镇静起效较慢(MD:15.97秒,95%CI[8.30,23.64],P=0.0000),但苏醒较快(MD:-0.91分钟,95%CI[-1.69,-0.13],P=0.023),恢复室停留时间较短(MD:-2.20分钟,95%CI[-3.23,-1.17],P=0.0000)。两种药物的手术成功率相似。与丙泊酚相比,瑞马唑仑显示出更好的安全性和有效性,降低了低血压、心动过缓、呼吸抑制和注射痛的风险,同时恢复更快。这些发现支持瑞马唑仑作为结肠镜检查可行的镇静剂,不过还需要进一步的大规模研究来证实这些结果。