Remimazolam recently became available as a sedative. The comparison of the respiratory suppression effects of remimazolam and propofol under deep sedation for colonoscopy was not thoroughly unclear, particularly with regard to the novel metric of time to first airway intervention. The goal of this study was to systemically compare the respiration profiles of the patients sedated with remimazolam and propofol at the comparable sedation level in the patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Four hundred-fifty outpatients were randomly assigned to remimazolam (Group Rem, n = 225) and propofol (Group Pro, n = 225). The target sedation level was the modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation ≤ 2. The primary outcome was elapsed time from anesthesia induction to first airway intervention. Secondary outcomes included incidence and severity of hypoxia and apnea, minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume (TV), and respiratory rate (RR).

The elapsed time from induction to the first airway intervention was 11 ± 8 min in Group Rem (n = 208) vs. 5 ± 6 min in Group Pro (n = 208, P < 0.001). Patients in Group Rem required less frequent airway intervention and had a lower incidence of and shorter duration of apnea than patients in Group Pro (all P < 0.001). MV at 1 min, 2 min, 4 min post-induction, and at the end of the procedure were higher in Group Rem than those in Group Pro (P < 0.001).

Patients sedated with remimazolam vs. propofol during colonoscopy maintain improved respiration and require less frequent airway intervention, and have lower incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration and registry URL ChiCTR2000034527, registered at www.chictr.org.cn.

Remimazolam (Rema) is a novel anesthetic that is widely used in anesthesia and sedation in critically ill patients. Notably, Rema exerts effects in patients through activation of the γ‑aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor. GABA may alleviate myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury; however, the impact of Rema and underlying molecular mechanism in myocardial I/R injury remain to be fully understood. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of Rema on cardiac I/R injury and to determine the underlying mechanisms. An acute myocardial I/R model was established by ligating the left anterior descending artery in adult male C57BL/6 mice (8‑10 weeks). Cultured Raw264.7 cells treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) were also used to investigate the effect of Rema on macrophages. The results of the present study revealed that Rema improved I/R‑induced cardiac dysfunction by increasing the ejection fraction value and reducing the myocardial infarction area. In addition, Rema also alleviated I/R‑induced cardiac inflammatory cell infiltration based on H&E and immunofluorescence staining. Transmission electron microscopy and ROS measurements showed that Rema improved I/R‑induced mitochondrial structural disruption and oxidative stress in cardiomyocytes. Transcriptomics analysis and reverse transcription‑quantitative PCR revealed that Rema alleviated I/R‑induced release of inflammatory factors and cytokines by inhibiting the expression of IL‑1β, IL‑6, C‑C chemokine receptor 2 and C‑X‑C motif chemokine ligand 5. Rema also inhibited I/R‑induced CD68+ cell proliferation, IL‑1β release, and NOD‑like receptor thermal protein domain associated protein 3 (NLRP3) and IL‑1β expression. The results of in vitro assays revealed that Rema inhibited LPS‑induced increases in IL‑1β, IL‑6 and TNF‑α expression and release in cultured RAW264.7 macrophages. In conclusion, the present study revealed that Rema may alleviate I/R‑induced cardiac dysfunction and myocardial injury by inhibiting oxidative stress and inflammatory responses via the NLRP3/IL‑1β pathway.

While propofol is a commonly utilized medication for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, it is associated with adverse effects such as hypotension and injection pain. This trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that chloroprocaine can reduce the requirement for propofol and alleviate injection pain during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Sixty patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled and randomly divided into study group (Group CP) and control group (Group C). Patients in Group CP received intravenous chloroprocaine 2 mg/kg, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg·kg-1·h-1 until the end of examination. Patients in Group C received the same volume of saline. Subsequently, all patients were intravenously administered sufentanil at a dose of 0.05 μg/kg. Thirty seconds later, propofol was uniformly infused intravenously at a rate of 60 mL/min using an infusion pump. The primary outcome was the consumption of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, bradycardia, injection pain, and coughing/body movement during examination. The recovery time, PACU stay time, postoperative pain score, and endoscopists' satisfaction score were also recorded.

Group CP demonstrated a significantly lower total requirement for propofol compared to Group C, with means of (119±14) mg and (148±18) mg respectively, P<0.001. This trend was also observed for both the first and supplemental doses. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding intraoperative adverse events. The incidence of injection pain in Group CP was lower than that in Group C (P=0.007). The recovery time [(4.7±1.4) vs (6.6±1.3), P<0.001], PACU stay time [(13.0±2.9) vs (16.7±3.0), P<0.001] and postoperative pain score [(1.9±0.7) vs (2.5±0.7), P=0.002] in Group CP were lower than those in Group C.

Intravenous chloroprocaine reduces the requirement for propofol, alleviates propofol injection pain, and improves recovery in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Colonoscopy is associated with discomfort that requires intravenous sedation (IVS). The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to explore the feasibility of virtual reality distraction (VRD) for colonoscopy using two primary endpoints: cecal intubation rate and the rate of rescue with IVS.

Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy with IVS were randomized in a 2:1 ratio in favor of VRD, with rescue IVS by propofol if needed. VRD involved use of a device providing a visual and auditive experience similar to clinical hypnosis.

Ninety patients were included (VRD:60, IVS: 30). Cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (92.8% for VRD vs 100% for IVS, P =0.3). The rate of rescue IVS in the VRD group was 63.6%. There was a decrease in median total dose of propofol per patient in the VRD group (1.15 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, P <0.001) and in the subgroup of VRD patients who received IVS rescue (3.17 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, P =0.003). The median level of pain was higher and the median level of comfort was lower in the VRD group (respectively 3 vs 0, P <0.001 and 7 vs 10, P <0.001).

This RCT provides preliminary data to better understand the feasibility of VRD for colonoscopy. We have not identified differences in procedure outcomes compared with conventional IVS, but nevertheless, higher pain and lower comfort scores were reported.

Background and Objectives: Appropriate sedation and anesthesia are crucial for ensuring comfortable endoscopic procedures. Propofol is one of the most often used sedatives. However, its safety and adverse effects restrict its usage. Remimazolam is a relatively new intravenous benzodiazepine that offers many benefits. Our analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam during short endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Turning Research Into Practice databases up to 31 December 2023, for randomized controlled trials published in English. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata Software/MP. Results: The success rate of sedation with remimazolam was slightly lower than that with propofol (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98~1.00; p = 0.004; I2 = 42%). As for anesthetic effect-related outcomes, remimazolam did not show advantages in onset time (MD = 12.72, 95% CI: 6.53~18.90, p < 0.001, I2 = 94%), recovery time (MD = 0.86, 95% CI: -0.55~2.27, p = 0.23, I2 = 98%), or intraoperative body movement (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.60~2.32, p = 0.62, I2 = 87%). However, compared to propofol, remimazolam significantly reduced the incidence of several adverse events, including injection pain (RR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.03~0.14, p < 0.001, I2 = 69%), intraoperative hypotension (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31~0.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 65%), bradycardia (RR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15~0.45, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and respiratory depression (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25~0.46, p < 0.001, I2 = 50%). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was slightly higher with remimazolam (RD: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00~0.03, p = 0.04, I2 = 33%). Conclusions: Remimazolam is a promising sedative for short endoscopic procedures due to its superior safety profile despite a slightly lower sedation success rate compared to propofol.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol-induced doses based on three indices: total body weight (TBW), ideal body weight (IBW), and lean body weight (LBW) in patients with obesity undergoing gastroscopy.

In a single-centre, prospective, randomised study conducted at an endoscopy centre, a total of 108 patients aged 18-65 years who underwent painless gastroscopy and had a body mass index (BMI) of 28-39.9 kg/m2 were included. Patients with obesity from the intended study population were randomised to receive a ciprofol infusion (0.4 mg/kg) for the induction of anaesthesia based on TBW (Group T), IBW (Group I), or LBW (Group L). A Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale score of < 1 was considered a marker of loss of consciousness, prompting gastroscopy. The primary outcomes were the success rate of anaesthesia for the procedures, and that of general anaesthesia achieved using the initial dose. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of remedial sedation, total ciprofol dose, and adverse events RESULTS: The procedure success rate was 100% in all three groups. Compared to Group L, the general anaesthesia success rate achieved with the initial dose was higher and the frequency of remedial sedation was lower in Groups T and I. Compared to Group L, fewer patients in Group T required additional medication. Compared to Group T, the occurrence of hypoxaemia was lower in the remaining two groups, and Group L had a lower incidence of posterior tongue drops and hypotension.

Induction doses of ciprofol based on TBW or IBW provided better anaesthesia than doses based on LBW for gastroscopy in patients with obesity. LBW-based induction doses of ciprofol improved cardiovascular stability and respiratory safety, whereas IBW-based induction doses of ciprofol reduced respiratory depression.

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300073539 first registration date 13/07/2023).

The ideal anesthetic agents for sedation, considering their respiratory and cardiovascular benefits and other perioperative or postoperative outcomes, are still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether ciprofol has advantages over propofol for sedation, particularly concerning respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes and other relevant perioperative measures.

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ciprofol and propofol for sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse respiratory events. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia during surgery, perioperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative awakening time. A random-effects model was used for more than four studies; otherwise, we employed the random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment.

Intravenous ciprofol resulted in fewer adverse respiratory events than propofol (Risk Ratio [RR = 0.44]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.35-0.55], p < 0.001, I2 = 45%, low quality). It also showed a lower incidence of injection pain (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.08‒0.17, p < 0.001, I2 = 36%, low quality), intraoperative hypotension (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.77, p < 0.001, I2 = 58%, low quality), and nausea and vomiting than propofol (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p = 0.01, I2 = 0%, moderate quality). However, no significant differences were observed for hypertension, bradycardia, and awakening time.

Ciprofol may be more effective than propofol in minimizing perioperative respiratory adverse events and maintaining hemodynamic stability during sedation without prolonging recovery time.

Propofol has been widely used in bidirectional gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation; however, it frequently leads to cardiovascular adverse events and respiratory depression. Propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) can provide safe sedation but may require higher dosages of propofol. On the contrary, etomidate offers hemodynamic stability.

To evaluate the effect of different dose etomidate added to propofol TCI sedation during same-visit bidirectional endoscopy.

A total of 330 patients from Fujian Provincial Hospital were randomly divided into three groups: P, 0.1EP, and 0.15EP. Patients in the P group received propofol TCI only, with an initial effect-site concentration of the propofol TCI system of 3.0 mg/mL. Patients in the 0.1EP and 0.15EP groups received 0.1 and 0.15 mg/kg etomidate intravenous injection, respectively, followed by propofol TCI.

Patients in the 0.15EP group had higher mean blood pressure after induction than the other groups (P group: 78 mmHg, 0.1EP group: 82 mmHg, 0.15EP group: 88 mmHg; P < 0.05). Total doses of propofol consumption significantly decreased in the 0.15EP group compared with that in the other groups (P group: 260.6 mg, 0.1EP group: 228.1 mg, 0.15EP group: 201.2 mg; P < 0.05). The induction time was longer in the P group than in the other groups (P group: 1.9 ± 0.7 minutes, 0.1EP group: 1.2 ± 0.4 minutes, 0.15EP group: 1.1 ± 0.3 minutes; P < 0.01). The recovery time was shorter in the 0.15EP group than in the other groups (P group: 4.8 ± 2.1 minutes, 0.1EP group: 4.5 ± 1.6 minutes, 0.15EP group: 3.9 ± 1.4 minutes; P < 0.01). The incidence of hypotension (P group: 36.4%, 0.1EP group: 29.1%, 0.15EP group: 11.8%; P < 0.01) and injection pain was lower in the 0.15EP group than in the other groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the incidence of respiratory depression was lower in the 0.15EP group than in the P group (P < 0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction of the patient, endoscopist, and anesthesiologist was higher in the 0.15EP group than in the other groups (P < 0.05).

Our findings suggest that 0.15 mg/kg etomidate plus propofol TCI can significantly reduce propofol consumption, which is followed by fewer cardiovascular adverse events and respiratory depression, along with higher patient, endoscopist, and anesthesiologist satisfaction.

This study aims to observe the effects of remimazolam tosylate on the response to endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. Additionally, we seek to determine the 95% effective dose (ED95) of remimazolam tosylate for inhibiting the endotracheal intubation response in this patient population.

This prospective study was registered with the China Clinical Trials Center (ChiCTR2200055709), https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=149640. Patients scheduled for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement under general anesthesia at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January and June 2023 were selected. They were randomly assigned into the remimazolam tosylate group (R group) and the propofol group (P group), with 30 patients in each group. After anesthesia induction and subsequent endotracheal intubation, sedation efficacy and adverse reactions were recorded for both groups. Venous blood samples (1 mL) were collected from patients before anesthesia induction and after endotracheal intubation to measure levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline. The modified Dixon sequential method was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam tosylate for inhibiting the endotracheal intubation response.

Levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline decreased significantly after endotracheal intubation in both the R group and P group, with no significant difference. Vital signs were more stable in the R group compared to the P group. Injection pain during anesthesia induction was reported in 3 patients (10%) in the R group, whereas 18 cases (60%) were observed in the P group. The Dixon sequential experiment included a total of 25 patients, with 13 (52%) showing positive responses and 12 (48%) negative responses.

Remimazolam tosylate is effective for inhibiting the systemic response to endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. Additionally, the occurrence rate of hypotension and injection pain during anesthesia induction is significantly lower compared to propofol. The ED95 of remimazolam tosylate for inhibiting the endotracheal intubation response in peritoneal dialysis catheter placement patients is 0.332 mg/kg.

Hypotension is a common side effect of propofol induction, and when severe, it is associated with adverse outcomes. Ultrasonography of the inferior vena cava (IVC) is a reliable indicator of the intravascular volume. This study investigated whether preoperative IVC ultrasound measurements could predict hypotension after propofol induction in patients undergoing colonoscopies.

Sixty-two adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) I-II scheduled for colonoscopy after propofol induction were recruited. The Ultrasound Maximum IVC diameter (dIVCmax), minimum IVC diameter (dIVCmin), and collapsibility index (IVC-CI) were assessed in all patients before propofol induction. Mean blood pressure (MBP) was recorded before induction. Propofol was injected intravenously after ultrasound measurements. MBP was recorded 1, 3, 5, and 10 min after propofol induction. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of IVC-CI was compared with that of patients who developed hypotension after propofol induction.

Sixty-two patients completed the study, and their data were considered for statistical analysis. After induction,30 patients developed hypotension. The area under the curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.72 (0.595 to 0.849) for IVC-CI. The optimal IVC-CI cutoff value was 38.25%, with a sensitivity of 56.7% and specificity of 71.9%. IVC-CI before induction strongly correlated with the maximum percentage of MBP drop after propofol induction. (regression coefficient = 0.33, P = 0.008), respectively.

Pre-induction IVC-CI > 38.25% is a non-invasive predictor of propofol-induced hypotension in patients undergoing colonoscopy and is strongly correlated with MBP drop.

This clinical trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University (YJ-20190529001). All the study procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 2013.

Propofol is a fast-acting intravenous anaesthetic widely used for sedation and anaesthesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy, bronchoscopy, and the induction/maintenance of general anaesthesia in outpatients and inpatients; however, propofol has several undesirable effects, including injection pain, which affects the physical and mental health of patients, and cardiopulmonary depression, characterised by hypotension, bradycardia and apnea, which commonly occur in clinical practice. Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a propofol analogue with good clinical safety, high potency and some advantages over propofol, including lower injection pain and haemodynamic depression in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy. This study aims to compare the impact of equivalent effective doses of propofol and ciprofol on haemodynamic changes in patients undergoing bronchoscopy under general anaesthesia.

This prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial will recruit 250 patients aged 18-80 years scheduled for elective bronchoscopy under general anaesthesia. The cohort will be randomised into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: propofol (200 mg/20 mL of saline) and ciprofol (40 mg/20 mL of saline). The primary outcomes are changes in heart rate and blood pressure before and after induction, laryngeal mask airway (LMA) placement and bronchoscopy placement. The secondary outcomes are the incidence of choking and injection pain, the type and dose of vasoactive drugs used during the operation, and the level of postoperative satisfaction among surgeons, anaesthesiologists and patients.

This trial was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University and registered with the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR2200063048) on 29 August 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through various channels. Academic dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

ChiCTR2200063048.

While esketamine shows promise as an adjunct in procedural sedation, its impact on postoperative cognitive recovery remains incompletely characterized. This study investigated the effects of esketamine on multiple dimensions of recovery, particularly cognition, in patients undergoing colonoscopy with propofol-based sedation.

We conducted this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial from January 6, 2023, to May 20, 2024, at two hospitals in China. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (n = 126) or placebo (n = 126), followed by propofol 1 mg/kg. We administered additional propofol boluses (0.5 mg/kg) to maintain sedation. The study assessed cognitive recovery on postoperative day 3 as the primary outcome, measured by the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS). Secondary outcomes included overall recovery, recovery in other PostopQRS domains, time to discharge, and adverse events.

Esketamine significantly enhanced cognitive recovery compared to placebo on postoperative day 3 (95.2% vs 83.3%, relative risk = 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.25, P = 0.002). Discharge times were comparable between groups (odds ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-1.16, P = 0.163). The esketamine group demonstrated higher satisfaction (P = 0.003) and significantly reduced incidences of hypotension (14.3% vs 36.5%, P < 0.001), bradycardia (5.6% vs 15.1%, P = 0.013), hypoxemia (2.4% vs 8.7%, P = 0.028), and injection site pain (21.4% vs 48.4%, P < 0.001).

Adding esketamine 0.2 mg/kg to propofol for colonoscopy sedation improved postoperative cognitive recovery, enhanced patient satisfaction, and reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events without prolonging discharge time. These findings establish low-dose esketamine as a beneficial adjunct to propofol in procedural sedation for colonoscopy.

Preoperative anxiety is a common phenomenon affecting 60-80% of surgical patients, with potential implications for surgical outcomes. Despite its prevalence, there remains a lack of consensus on its precise effects and optimal management strategies.

This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize current evidence on the impact of preoperative anxiety on various surgical outcomes, including anesthetic and analgesic requirements, delirium, recovery times, and pain.

We conducted a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between preoperative anxiety and surgical outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMD), correlation (COR), and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Our analysis revealed significant associations between preoperative anxiety and increased anesthetic requirements (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32-1.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.12). Preoperative anxiety was associated with postoperative delirium in adults (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.11-3.26), unlike the pediatric population. Preoperative anxiety was associated with prolonged time to reach Modified Aldrete Score of 9 (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.50-1.07) and extubation time (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.58-1.21). Preoperative anxiety was positively correlated with propofol consumption (STAI-S COR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.55). No significant association between preoperative anxiety and postoperative pain was found.

This meta-analysis provides evidence for the wide-ranging effects of preoperative anxiety on surgical outcomes. The findings emphasize the need for routine preoperative anxiety screening and the development of targeted interventions. Future research should focus on long-term impacts and the effectiveness of various anxiety management strategies.

Invasive procedures and environmental factors in the intensive care unit (ICU) may cause anxiety and discomfort in patients, who often require sedation therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of remimazolam tosilate for procedural sedation in ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation following endotracheal intubation. Eighty patients from a single centre were randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the remimazolam group. Blood tests were conducted to evaluate changes in lactate, blood lipids, liver and kidney function, and inflammatory markers, and patients' vital signs were observed over several periods. This study compared the incidence of delirium, the impact on liver and kidney function, circulatory effects, and changes in blood lipids between the two groups. These findings have optimised the selection of medications, providing ICU patients with more options for sedation therapy.

In this single-centre randomised controlled trial, intubated patients were randomly assigned to the remimazolam group or the propofol group. Under the same analgesic regimen, the two groups received remimazolam and propofol for procedural sedation.

Our primary outcome was the mean arterial pressure (MAP), which significantly differed on Days 4 and 7 (P = 0.021, control group vs. experimental group = 85.23 ± 11.24 vs. 94.36 ± 13.18, P = 0.023, 83.55 ± 8.94 vs. 92.66 ± 7.02). With respect to liver and kidney function, the ∆AST value in the remimazolam group was significantly lower than that in the control group on Day 7 (P = 0.023). There were significant differences in triglyceride (TG) levels on Days 4 and 7 (P = 0.020) and in the ∆LDL on Day 7 (P = 0.027). Furthermore, the rates of dyslipidaemia and delirium in the remimazolam group were lower than those in the propofol group (85.0%, n = 40 vs. 90.0%, n = 40; 27.5%, n = 40 vs. 55%, n = 40).

Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine that has demonstrated promising applications in general anaesthesia and procedural sedation; however, its use in ICU sedation is still in the early stages of research. Current evidence suggests that remimazolam is a safe sedative that is particularly well suited for patients with haemodynamic instability. Large sample-size randomised clinical trials are warranted.

Ciprofol, a novel γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist, outperforms propofol with minimal cardiovascular effects, higher potency, reduced injection pain, and a broader safety margin. Despite these advantages, ciprofol's clinical research is still emerging. This study compares the median effective dose (ED50) and adverse reactions of ciprofol and propofol, in conjunction with sufentanil, for suppressing cardiovascular responses during tracheal intubation. Fifty-three adult patients scheduled for tracheal intubation under general anesthesia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (Group C) or propofol (Group P), according to a random number table. Tracheal intubation was performed using a standardized laryngoscope and endotracheal tube. The Dixon's up-and-down method was employed to determine the ED50 and 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol and propofol in inhibiting cardiovascular responses during tracheal intubation. Based on the pilot study, the initial dose for ciprofol was set at 0.35 mg/kg (with a 0.01 mg/kg increment) and for propofol at 2.0 mg/kg (with a 0.1 mg/kg increment). Probit analysis was applied to derive dose-response curves, while adverse reactions were continuously monitored. A total of 54 participants were included, with 24 in group C (1 excluded) and 30 in group P. Probit analysis revealed that the ED50 of ciprofol for inhibiting cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation were 0.326 mg/kg (95% CI 0.304-0.337 mg/kg), and for propofol, 1.541 mg/kg (95% CI 1.481-1.599 mg/kg). The heart rate in group P was significantly higher than the group C at 1 minute (p = 0.026) and 3 minutes (p = 0.016) post-intubation. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) decreased significantly before and after intubation compared to baseline values in both groups (p< 0.05). Group C experienced significantly less injection pain (p = 0.001), although the incidence of other adverse effects was not statistically different between groups (p > 0.05).Clinical Trial Registration: hppts://ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT06095570(18/10/2023).

The incidence of hemodynamic instability associated with dexmedetomidine (DEX) sedation has been reported to exceed 50%, with substantial inter-individual variability in response. Genetic factors have been suggested to contribute significantly to such variation. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical, pharmacokinetic, and genetic factors associated with DEX-induced hemodynamic instability in pediatric anesthesia patients.

A cohort of 270 pediatric patients scheduled for elective interventional surgery received an intranasal dose of 3 mcg·kg-1 of dexmedetomidine, and subsequent propofol induction was conducted when patients had a UMSS of 2-4. The primary endpoint was hemodynamic instability-defined as a composite of hypotension and/or bradycardia, which is characterized by a 20% reduction from age-specific baseline values. Plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine were determined, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped. A validated population pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. LASSO regression was used to identify significant factors, and a Cox's proportional hazards model-derived nomogram for hemodynamic instability was developed.

Hemodynamic instability was observed in 52 out of 270 patients (209 events), resulting in a cumulative incidence of 16.30% at 90 min, as estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimation, and it was associated with a median time to event of 35 min. The interval time between DEX initiation and propofol induction was 16 min (IQR: 12-22 min). The cumulative incidence was 8.2% within 22 min after DEX initiation. The identified significant risk factors for DEX-associated hemodynamic instability included weight, DEX clearance, concomitant propofol use, and the following gene variants UGT2B10 rs1841042 (hazard ratio (HR):1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.79), CYP2A6 rs8192733 (HR:0.28, 95%CI:0.09-0.88), ADRA2B rs3813662 (HR:1.39,95%CI:1.02-1.89), CACNA2D2 rs2236957 (HR:1.46, 95%CI:1.09-1.96), NR1I2 rs3814057 (HR:0.64, 95%CI:0.43-0.95), and CACNB2 rs10764319 (HR:1.40,95%CI:1.05-1.87). The areas under the curve for the training and test cohorts were 0.881 and 0.762, respectively. The calibration curve indicated excellent agreement.

The predictive nomogram, which incorporates genetic variants (UGT2B10, CYP2A6, ADRA2B, CACNA2D2, NR1I2, and CACNB2) along with clinical factors such as weight, DEX clearance, and propofol use, may help prevent DEX-associated hemodynamic instability. Delayed hemodynamic instability is likely to occur after 35-min DEX initiation in patients with lower DEX clearance after propofol induction.

We determined the median effective dose and 95% confidence interval (CI) of remimazolam required to inhibit laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion reactions combined with sufentanil 0.3 μg/kg in pediatric anesthesia.

Children scheduled to undergo elective laryngeal mask anesthesia were divided into the preschool (age: 3-6 years) and school-age (6-12 years) groups. The timer was started after intravenous remimazolam was administered; thereafter, 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil was injected intravenously. The laryngeal mask was placed 3 min after remimazolam was finished. If a positive response to LMA insertion, such as movement, swallowing, coughing, hiccups, or other reactions, was observed during the insertion, the dose was increased by 0.03 mg/kg for the next patient; if there was no response, the dose was decreased by 0.03 mg/kg instead. The trial officially commenced after the first LMA was successfully inserted and continued until alternating positive and negative responses formed seven crossover points. Thereafter, probit regression was performed to calculate the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) with the corresponding 95% CIs. The time from remimazolam administration to the disappearance of the eyelash reflex was recorded. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were recorded before (T1, baseline values) and 3 min after (T2) intravenous remimazolam administration. Adverse reactions were also noted.

Overall, 52 children were included; 25 belonged to the preschool group and 27 to the school-age group. In the preschool group, the ED50 and ED95 for remimazolam and their 95% CIs were 0.476 (0.447-0.517) mg/kg and 0.554 (0.515-0.688) mg/kg, respectively. In the school-age group, the ED50 and ED95 for remimazolam and corresponding 95% CIs were 0.427 (0.399-0.463) mg/kg and 0.504 (0.467-0.635) mg/kg, respectively. The dosage for the preschool group was significantly higher than that for the school-age group (p = 0.003). Conversely, the time from remimazolam administration to the disappearance of the eyelash reflex; LMA insertion success rate; or incidence of coughing, movement, swallowing, and hiccups did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Remimazolam can be safely used for laryngeal mask anesthesia induction in pediatric patients.

https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400087333.

The hypotensive side effects caused by drugs during their use have been a vexing issue. Recent studies have found that deep learning can effectively predict the biological activity of compounds by mining patterns and rules in the data, providing a potential solution for identifying drug side effects. In this study, we established a deep learning-based predictive model, utilizing a data set comprised of compounds known to either elevate or lower blood pressure. Subsequently, the trained model was used to predict the blood pressure-lowering effects of 26,000 compounds. Based on the predicted results, we randomly selected 50 molecules for validation and compared them with literature reports. The results showed that the predictions for 30 molecules were consistent with literature reports, with known antihypertensive drugs such as reserpine, guanethidine, and mecamylamine ranking at the top. We further selected 10 of these molecules and 3 related protein targets for molecular docking, and the docking results indirectly confirmed the model's accuracy. Ultimately, we discovered and validated that salaprinol significantly inhibits ACE1 activity and lowers canine blood pressure. In summary, we have established a highly accurate activity prediction model and confirmed its accuracy in predicting potential blood pressure-lowering compounds, which is expected to help patients avoid hypotensive side effects during clinical medication and also provide significant assistance in the discovery of antihypertensive drugs.

With the rising number of elderly surgical patients, selecting an appropriate anesthetic tailored to their specific needs is essential. Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has garnered attention due to its low injection pain rate and minimal impact on the circulatory system. This meta-analysis aims to examine the efficacy and safety profile of ciprofol during perioperative management of elderly patients.

Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to March 23, 2024, were conducted. Eligible studies were included, data extracted, quality assessed using the ROB2 tool, and analyses performed with Stata 17.0.

Analysis of eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 1715 patients demonstrated that ciprofol outperformed propofol regarding injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09-0.20, p < 0.001), hypotension (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.94; p = 0.014), bradycardia (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.85, p = 0.002), respiratory depression (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.43, p < 0.001), hypoxemia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.26-0.55, p < 0.001), and body movement (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.96, p = 0.022). No significant differences were observed in induction time(SMD: 0.11,95% CI: -0.39-0.61, p = 0.655), sedative success rate(RR:1.01,,:95% CI:0.97-1.06, p = 0.669)), time of leaving the operating room(SMD-0.21,95% CI: -0.83-0.40, p = 0.497), bucking(RR:0.56,:95% CI:0.27-1.17, p = 0.134)), nausea and vomiting(RR:0.69,95% CI:0.43-1.11, p = 0.143)).

Ciprofol demonstrates comparable efficacy to propofol in general anesthesia for elderly patients, with an enhanced safety profile, making it a viable clinical alternative. Further well-designed large RCTs are required to substantiate its safety profile.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasingly performed under sedation in older patients. Aging has implications in increasing the morbidity and the risk of complications related to sedation. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in complications between patients aged 65 to 74 years and those aged over 75 years.

A prospective study was designed. Patients older than 65 years under deep sedation were included. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess complications in the propofol-sedated gastroscopy and propofol- and fentanyl-sedated colonoscopy groups.

1,225 sedations were performed and 97.3 % of endoscopic procedures were completed. Desaturation occurred in 121 patients (9.9 %) with no significant differences between the two groups, 71 patients in the 65-74 age group and 50 in the ≥75 age group (9.2 % vs 10.9 %; p = 0.336). Major complications requiring intervention occurred in 68 patients (5.6 %), 46 in the 65-74 age group and 22 in the ≥75 age group (6.0 % vs 4.8 %; p = 0.385). Age contributed to the development of complications in gastroscopy under propofol sedation.

Complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation in patients older than 65 years are mostly not serious. Deep sedation in patients aged 75 years and older is not associated with more complications than in patients aged 65 to 74 years.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with propofol in general anesthesia in adult patients. Methods: A systematic search in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was performed. Patients undergoing complex surgery who were critically ill or non-critically ill were included. The risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was applied. Random-effects models using the inverse variance method were applied for all meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials were included (patients taking remimazolam, n = 678; propofol, n = 454). Remimazolam compared to propofol is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76, I2 = 63%, n = 9, CoE moderate certainty), incidence of respiratory depression (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0. 82, I2 = 0%, n = 3; CoE moderate certainty), injection site pain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94, I2 = 21%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty), and may produce little or no difference in bradycardia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients undergoing complex surgery who are critically ill or non-critically ill, remimazolam, compared with propofol, is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension, incidence of respiratory depression, and injection site pain, but little or no difference in bradycardia is possible.

Remimazolam, a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, shows promise for procedural sedation. This study compared the cognitive recovery of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy.

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 228 patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing outpatient colonoscopies were recruited. Patients received intravenous sufentanil 0.05 μg/kg, followed by either remimazolam 0.2 mg/kg or propofol 1 mg/kg for sedation induction. The assigned study drug (remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg or propofol 0.5 mg/kg) was titrated to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale score < 3 during the procedure. The primary outcome was the incidence of cognitive recovery, assessed using the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS) cognitive domain on postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes included overall and other PostopQRS domains recovery, time to discharge, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.

Cognitive recovery on day 3 was similar between remimazolam (84.2%) and propofol (85.1%) groups (risk ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.11; p = 0.854). No significant differences were observed in overall recovery, other domains, or discharge time. Remimazolam patients reported higher satisfaction (p = 0.001) and experienced lower incidences of hypotension (21.9% vs 53.5%; p < 0.001), hypoxemia (6.1% vs 16.7%; p = 0.024), and injection site pain (15.8% vs 41.2%; p < 0.001) compared to propofol.

In elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, remimazolam demonstrated comparable cognitive recovery to propofol, with higher patient satisfaction and a more favorable safety profile. Remimazolam may be the preferred alternative to propofol for procedural sedation in this vulnerable population.

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200066689.

In China, the majority of hysteroscopic procedures require moderate sedation and analgesia. The efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in reducing the need for sedatives and alleviating perioperative pain during hysteroscopy remains equivocal. This study aims to determine whether the intravenous administration of lidocaine can reduce the required dose of propofol and enhance perioperative pain management.

We conducted a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial involving patients with ASA I-II undergoing hysteroscopy. Forty patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either receive an intravenous bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion at 4 mg/kg/h until the conclusion of the procedure, or an equivalent volume of normal saline. Propofol was then titrated to maintain a MOAA/S score of ≤ 2.

Compared with the control group, the lidocaine group showed a 13.8% decrease in the total dose of propofol (140.0[120.0, 155.0] mg vs 162.5[140.0, 197.5] mg), which was statistically significant (P = 0.014). The induction dose of propofol was 1.37 (1.29, 1.56) mg/kg in the lidocaine group and 1.61 (1.48, 1.94) mg/kg in the control group, respectively (P = 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the supplemental dose of propofol (P = 0.062), the number of involuntary movements during hysteroscopy (P = 0.384), or postoperative pain scores (T0: P = 0.628; T1: P = 0.886; T2: P = 0.711). Additionally, the incidence of intraoperative hypoxia (P = 1.000) and fatigue scores (T0: P = 0.878; T1: P = 0.401; T2: P = 0.056) between the two groups were not statistically significant.

Intravenous lidocaine reduces the dose requirements of propofol during the induction phase of anesthesia. However, it does not have a significant influence on alleviating intraoperative and postoperative pain during hysteroscopic procedures.

Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients.

A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study.

General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.

We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022.

Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8-1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5-2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h).

The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain).

The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (- 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of -8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, p < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, p < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences.

Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain.

www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).

Propofol is commonly used for procedural sedation but may increase side effects in a dose-dependent manner. Remimazolam, an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, has been approved for procedural sedation but may delay awakening. This study tested the hypothesis that remimazolam as a supplement reduces effect-site propofol concentration (Ce prop ) required to suppress response to cervical dilation in patients undergoing hysteroscopy.

One hundred and fifty patients who were scheduled for hysteroscopy were randomized to receive 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2 mg·kg -1 intravenous remimazolam, followed by a bolus of sufentanil 0.15 μg⋅kg -1 , and a target-controlled propofol infusion. The initial target Ce prop was 3.5 μg·mL -1 and was increased or decreased in subsequent patients by steps of 0.5 μg·mL -1 according to whether there was loss of response to cervical dilation in the previous patient. We used up-down sequential analysis to determine values of Ce prop that suppressed response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC 50 ).

The EC 50 of propofol for suppressing response to cervical dilation was lower in patients given 0.1 mg·kg -1 (2.08 [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.88-2.28] μg·mL -1 ), 0.15 mg⋅kg -1 (1.83 [1.56-2.10] μg·mL -1 ), and 0.2 mg⋅kg -1 (1.43 [1.27-1.58] μg·mL -1 ) remimazolam than those given 0 mg⋅kg -1 (3.67 [3.49-3.86] μg·mL -1 ) or 0.05 mg⋅kg -1 (3.47 [3.28-3.67] μg·mL -1 ) remimazolam (all were P < .005). Remimazolam at doses of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 mg·kg -1 decreased EC 50 of propofol by 43.3% (95% CI, 41.3%-45.5%), 50.3% (48.0%-52.8%), and 61.2% (58.7%-63.8%), respectively, from baseline (remimazolam 0 mg⋅kg -1 ). Propofol consumption was lower in patients given 0.1 mg⋅kg -1 (4.15 [3.51-5.44] mg·kg -1 ), 0.15 mg⋅kg -1 (3.54 [3.16-4.46] mg·kg -1 ), and 0.2 mg⋅kg -1 (2.74 [1.73-4.01] mg·kg -1 ) remimazolam than those given 0 mg⋅kg -1 (6.09 [4.99-7.35] mg·kg -1 ) remimazolam (all were P < .005). Time to anesthesia emergence did not differ significantly among the 5 groups.

For women undergoing hysteroscopic procedures, remimazolam at doses from 0.1 to 0.2 mg·kg -1 reduced the EC 50 of propofol inhibiting response to cervical dilation and the total propofol requirement. Whether the combination could improve perioperative outcomes deserves further investigation.

Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and other significant cardiopulmonary comorbidities are vulnerable to hemodynamic instability during anesthesia. This case report compares the use of remimazolam and midazolam in a 71-year-old man with symptomatic AS, chronic kidney disease, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. The patient underwent multiple short ambulatory interventional radiology procedures. While moderate sedation with midazolam resulted in significant hypotension, use of remimazolam in subsequent procedures demonstrated a stable hemodynamic profile despite increased disease burden. This report highlights the potential advantages of remimazolam compared to midazolam in high-risk patients undergoing interventional radiology procedures.

Ciprofol is a novel propofol analogue with a characteristic of hemodynamic stability. At present, there is a lack of research comparing the hemodynamic stability of ciprofol and propofol during painless colonoscopy. In this study, we aim to test the hypothesis that ciprofol is superior to propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability for sedation anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

A total of 222 patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in group P (n = 112) and group C (n = 110) received propofol and ciprofol sedation, respectively. Noninvasive blood pressure were monitored starting from induction (T0) to the end of the procedure, at 2-min intervals (T1 to T10). Heart rate variability (HRV), pain injection, Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) score, body movement, doses of norepinephrine, modified Aldrete score, drug-related adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction and endoscopist satisfaction were recorded.

In group C, fewer patients experienced a decrease in blood pressure with a higher HRV after induction sedation, the incidence of pain injection was reduced, the amount of norepinephrine dose was decreased, patient satisfaction was increased compared with group P (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in induction time, modified Aldrete score, alertness time, drug-related adverse reactions, and endoscopist satisfaction.

Our study indicated intravenous induction with ciprofol was superior, with regard to hemodynamic stability and reduced injection pain, than induction with propofol for anesthesia in patients undergoing painless colonoscopy.

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061814).

Thyroid surgery with intraoperative nerve monitoring under total intravenous anaesthesia often requires deeper sedation due to limitations or lack of neuromuscular blocking agents, usually resulting in haemodynamic instability. Remimazolam, a newly developed sedative, is being studied for its effect on the haemodynamic profile of patients undergoing this procedure and compared with propofol.

This will be a single-centre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial in American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III patients between the ages of 18 and 65 who require recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring for thyroid surgery. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to either remimazolam besylate or propofol, with 142 cases in each group according to a randomised, computer-generated cohort. The primary outcome is the occurrence of hypotension from induction of anaesthesia to full recovery. Secondary outcomes include the administration of vasoactive agents, the number of hypotension or hypertension episodes, the cumulative duration of hypotension or hypertension, the dose of intraoperative rescue sedation and analgesia, the time to extubation and awakening and the incidence of adverse events.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University (2023-2024). The study protocol was modified according to the reviewers' comments, and the revised version was approved by the Ethics Committee (2024 Research Ethics Amendment No. 3). On completion of the study, we will commit to ensuring that the results are made available to the public, regardless of the outcome. This will include either publication in an appropriate journal or oral presentation at academic conferences.

ChiCTR2300076583.

The debate continues over the differential impact of remimazolam vs propofol on hemodynamic stability. This study aims to elucidate the effects of a combination of remimazolam and esketamine vs propofol and esketamine on hemodynamic parameters in elderly patients undergoing painless colonoscopies.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial involving 754 patients, divided equally between two treatment groups. The remimazolam-esketamine group (RE group) received 0.15 mg/kg of remimazolam and 0.3 mg/kg of esketamine. Conversely, the propofol-esketamine group (PE group) was administered 1.5 mg/kg of propofol with 0.3 mg/kg of esketamine. Primary outcomes focused on the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes assessed were other hemodynamic adverse events, intraoperative blood pressure and heart rate fluctuations, usage of vasoactive agents, sedation efficacy, and additional adverse reactions.

Hypotension occurred significantly less frequently in the RE group (9.78%, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 6.67-12.87%) compared to the PE group (23.57%, 95% CI: 21.22-30.52%), P<0.001. The RE group also showed lower incidences of sinus tachycardia, sinus bradycardia, and required less support from vasoactive agents (P<0.001). Additionally, the RE group experienced smaller fluctuations in blood pressure and heart rate (P<0.05). Both groups achieved a 100% sedation success rate. Notably, the RE group had a longer induction period but a quicker recovery time (P<0.001), and lower rates of respiratory depression (P=0.006) and injection pain (P<0.001).

Remimazolam combined with esketamine offers superior hemodynamic stability and significantly reduces adverse event rates compared to propofol plus esketamine in elderly patients undergoing painless colonoscopies, while maintaining effective sedation.

Ciprofol was approved for use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring sedation during mechanical ventilation in July 2022. A pooled post-hoc analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 trials was conducted primarily to explore hypotension-free outcome in ICU patients who required mechanical ventilation and achieved the target light sedation goal at an early stage after being sedated with ciprofol or propofol.

All eligible ICU patients who were expected to require sedation for 6-24 h were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either a ciprofol or propofol group. Ciprofol or propofol was initially infused at loading doses of 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg followed by maintenance doses of 0.3 or 1.5 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol or propofol dosages were adjusted up or down at rates of 0.05-0.10 mg/kg/h or 0.25-0.50 mg/kg/h, respectively, to achieve the target light sedation (a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -2 to + 1). The primary post-hoc outcome was the hypotension-free rate in patients who had achieved the target sedation goal after 30-min administration of ciprofol or propofol.

In total, 174 patients were enrolled for pooled post-hoc analysis, of whom 116 and 58 were assigned to the ciprofol and propofol groups, respectively. The hypotension-free rate was significantly higher in patients who achieved the target sedation goal after 30-min administration of ciprofol (93.0% vs. 81.0%, P = 0.018), and especially in the subgroups of males and patients aged < 65 years. Multivariable analysis revealed that ciprofol treatment, a younger age and lower baseline body mass index were independent favorable predictors for a higher hypotension-free rate in patients who achieved the target sedation goal after 30-min of drug administration. Moreover, hypotension-free patients who reached the target sedation level after 30 min had a more favorable short-term prognosis including a lower incidence of drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events, shorter time to extubation and fewer dose adjustments of ciprofol or propofol (all P < 0.05).

ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and sedated with ciprofol had significantly lower rate of hypotension during the early phase of achieving light sedation during a 6-24 h period, leading to a more favorable short-term prognosis (within 24 h).

Phase 2 trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04147416. Registered November 1, 2019, https://classic.

gov/ct2/show/NCT04147416 ) and phase 3 trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04620031. Registered November 6, 2020, https://classic.

gov/ct2/show/NCT04620031 ).

Although remimazolam tosilate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that causes less respiratory and circulatory depression than propofol, studies evaluating its efficacy and safety during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are limited. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for ERCP performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

This study is a randomized controlled clinical trial featuring a noninferiority design. A total of 102 eligible patients undergoing ERCP under MAC were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam tosilate group (R group) or the propofol group (P group) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the R group were sedated with remimazolam tosilate, while those in the P group received propofol, both under MAC. The primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate of ERCP completion under MAC. Secondary outcomes included the time to loss of consciousness, sedative effects, and perioperative adverse events at various time points for patients in both groups.

Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. The successful completion rate for ERCP under MAC was 100 % in the R group and 96.1 % in the P group, resulting in a difference of 3.92 % (95 % CI: -2%, 10 %). This difference met the pre-established criterion of being greater than -8%. The total number of norepinephrine infusions, as well as the incidence of intravenous injection pain, post-induction hypotension, post-induction bradycardia, intraoperative hypotension, respiratory depression, and hypoxemia, were significantly lower in the R group compared to the P group. Conversely, the total number of phloroglucinol uses, body movements, and instances of rapid gastrointestinal peristalsis were significantly higher in the R group than in the P group.

Remimazolam-based MAC for ERCP exhibited non-inferior efficacy compared to propofol-based MAC, while also resulting in fewer circulatory and respiratory adverse events during the procedures. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes are required to evaluate the utility of remimazolam in elderly patients.

Postoperative pain is a common yet often underestimated complication following esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with limited strategies for effective management. This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial assessed the effects of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to the anesthesia regimen on postoperative pain and early recovery in patients undergoing esophageal ESD.

In total, 60 patients scheduled for elective esophageal ESD under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the DEX or control group. The DEX group received an intravenous loading dose of DEX at 1 μg/kg for 10 min, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h, which was stopped 30 min before the end of the procedure. The control group received normal saline as a placebo. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), patient satisfaction, and lengths of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital.

The incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group (absolute difference: -33.4%; OR: 0.250; 95% CI: 0.085-0.731, P = 0.01). Pain scores at 1 h postoperatively (0.5[2.0] vs 3.0[1.3], P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the DEX group. Additionally, morphine dosage in the PACU (0[0] vs 1.0[2.0] P = 0.004) was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared with the control group. In the DEX group, the incidence and severity of PONV were significantly decreased and the length of PACU stay was shorter than in the control group (P < 0.01). However, the rates of intraoperative hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia were similar between the two groups. Patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay were also comparable.

Adding DEX to the anesthesia regimen for esophageal ESD significantly attenuates postoperative pain and improves early recovery outcomes.

A combination of remimazolam and propofol could produce more stable sedation. A good medication regimen should consider not only efficacy but also safety, especially hypotension. The aim of the current study was to compare the incidence and amount of hypotension by propofol versus remimazolam-propofol combinations in day-surgery hysteroscopy.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (Group P, n = 125) or remimazolam-propofol combinations (Group RP, n = 125) at a 1:1 ratio. Intravenous injection of sufentanil 0.1ug/kg were administered before sedative medication. In group P, a bolus of 2.5 mg/kg propofol was administered. In group RP, intravenous anesthesia was commenced with 0.125 mg/kg remimazolam and 1 mg/kg propofol. After loss of consciousness, propofol was maintained at 6 mg/kg/h. The primary outcomes were the incidence and amount of hypotension during surgery. Hypotension was defined as a MAP less than 65mmHg for at least 1 min. The amount of hypotension was assessed by time-weighted average intraoperative MAP under a threshold of 65 mmHg. The secondary outcomes were various anesthesia related parameters and some adverse events.

In group P, 25 patients (20.0%) experienced hypotension during hysteroscopy compared with 9 patients (7.2%) in group RP, for a difference of 12.8% (RR 2.778, 95%CI [1.352-5.709]). The combination of remimazolam and propofol resulted in significantly lower TWA (Time Weighted Average) threshold 0.14 (0.10-0.56) mmHg in group RP compared to 0.31 (0.15-0.67) mmHg in group P. The total dose of propofol was nearly double in group P compared to group RP. A significantly higher frequency of injection pain and low oxygen saturation was observed in the group P than that of the group RP. Hiccup was observed only in group RP. The incidences of body movement, bradycardia and vomiting were no significant difference between groups.

The incidence and amount of hypotension by remimazolam-propofol combinations was significantly less than that by propofol sedation in day-surgery hysteroscopy. The optimization of medication regimen would attenuate the harm of hypotension and contribute to patients' rapid recovery in day surgery.

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400079888 (date: 15/01/2024).

Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) emphasizes early recovery. Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine with a short recovery time. This study hypothesized that remimazolam is non-inferior to dexmedetomidine in terms of recovery after TAVR.

In this retrospective observational study, remimazolam was compared to dexmedetomidine in patients who underwent TAVR under MAC at a tertiary academic hospital between July 2020 and July 2022. The primary outcome was timely recovery after TAVR, defined as discharge from the intensive care unit within the first day following the procedure. Propensity score matching was used to compare timely recovery between remimazolam and dexmedetomidine, applying a non-inferiority margin of -10%.

The study included 464 patients, of whom 218 received remimazolam and 246 received dexmedetomidine. After propensity score matching, 164 patients in each group were included in the analysis. Regarding timely recovery after TAVR, remimazolam was non-inferior to dexmedetomidine (152 of 164 [92.7%] in the remimazolam group versus 153 of 164 [93.3%] in the dexmedetomidine group, risk difference [95% CI]: -0.6% [-6.7%, 5.5%]). The use of remimazolam was associated with fewer postoperative vasopressors/inotropes (21 of 164 [12.8%] vs. 39 of 164 [23.8%]) and temporary pacemakers (TPMs) (76 of 164 [46.3%] vs. 108 of 164 [65.9%]) compared to dexmedetomidine.

In patients undergoing TAVR under MAC, remimazolam was non-inferior to dexmedetomidine in terms of timely recovery. Remimazolam may be associated with better postoperative recovery profiles, including a lesser need for vasopressors/inotropes and TPMs.

We designed this trial to compare the recovery time of remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

In this randomized, non-Inferiority trial, 360 patients aged 65 years or older, scheduled for elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, were randomly assigned to the remimazolam combined with fentanyl (RF) group or the propofol combined with fentanyl (PF) group. The primary outcome was the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time, defined as the time from the end of the examination to scoring 9 points using the Modified Post-Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System (MPADSS) criteria. Secondary outcomes included sedation-related adverse events, recall, injection pain, as well as postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively.

A total of 351 patients completed the study, with 174 receiving remimazolam and 177 receiving propofol. The PACU stay time in RF group was non-inferior to that in PF group [14 (11, 18) vs 13 (10, 17), mean difference 1 (95% confidence interval 0, 2), P=0.084 for noninferiority]. However, remimazolam was associated with lower rate of hypoxemia [4.7% (8/180) vs 12.4% (22/180), P=0.011], reduced use of vasoactive drugs [1 (0, 1) vs 1 (1, 2), P<0.001], less injection pain [2 (1.2%) vs 35 (21.3%), P<0.001], and lower recall [20 (11.8%) vs 36 (20.3%), P=0.034]. There were no differences in the QoR-15 scores and PSQI scores at postoperative 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month between groups.

This non-inferiority study revealed that in elderly outpatients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam achieved recovery times comparable to propofol, with fewer associated complications.

Hypovolemia is common in colonoscopy due to fasting and bowel preparation, and propofol itself can reduce systemic vascular resistance, resulting in relative hypovolemia. Therefore, hypotension is not a rare event during propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy.

Our objective was to explore the efficacy of esketamine as a sedative adjuvant in reducing the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy.

This was a prospective randomized trial. The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR 2100047032).

We included 100 eligible patients who planned to receive a colonoscopy and randomly divided them into 4 groups with 25 patients in each group, which were propofol 2 mg/kg (Group P), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (Group E1), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (Group E2), and propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (Group E3). The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were documented at various times during the procedure, including the patient's entry into the endoscopic room (T0), the induction of sedation (T1), the insertion of the colonoscope (T2), the removal of the colonoscope (T3), and the awakening of the patient (T4). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular side effects other than hypotension, incidence of hypoxia, cumulative changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters, total propofol dosage, anesthesia recovery time, and satisfactory levels of both patients and endoscopists.

The incidence of hypotension in Group E1 (16%), Group E2 (16%), and Group E3 (12%) was significantly lower than in Group P (60%), with p values 0.003, 0.003, and <0.001 respectively. The cumulative changes in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in Groups E1, E2, and E3 were significantly higher than in Group P (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively). Cumulative changes in systolic blood pressure in Group E3 were significantly higher than those in Group P (p = 0.012). The respiratory-related parameters were not statistically significant.

This study showed that the application of 0.4 mg/kg esketamine in propofol-based sedation reduced the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy while providing satisfactory sedation.