Remimazolam Attenuates LPS-Derived Cognitive Dysfunction via Subdiaphragmatic Vagus Nerve Target α7nAChR-Mediated Nrf2/HO-1 Signal Pathway.

Sepsis-induced neuroinflammation is significantly associated with sepsis-related brain dysfunction. Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine anesthetic with multiple organ protective effects. However, it is unknown whether remimazolam can ameliorate LPS-induced brain impairment. In this study, Lipopolysaccharide (5 mg/kg, LPS) severely impaired Sprague-Dawley rats spatial learning ability, memory, and cognitive function. However, remimazolam treatment showed a protective effect on LPS-induced cognitive dysfunction. Remimazolam partly reversed LPS-induced splenomegaly, decreased serum cytokine expression, suppressed hippocampal M1 microglial activation, and mitigated oxidative stress injury and neuroinflammation. Electroacupuncture (EA) or PNU282987 treatment improved LPS-induced cognitive dysfunction and also significantly inhibited neuroinflammation and systemic inflammation. However, MLA, ML385, or subdiaphragmatic vagus nerve (SDV) treatment abolished the protective effects of remimazolam. Further mechanistic studies showed that remimazolam induces protective effects by activating subdiaphragmatic vagus nerve target α7nAChR-mediated Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway. These results demonstrate that remimazolam can up-regulate α7nAChR, Cyto-Nrf2, HO-1, and cognitive-related (CREB, BDNF, PSD95) protein expressions, suppress M1 microglia, ameliorate neuroinflammation or systemic inflammation, and reverse cognitive dysfunction. Therefore, this study provides insight into a new therapeutic target for the treatment of sepsis-induced cerebral dysfunction.

Actions of remimazolam on inhibitory transmission of rat spinal dorsal horn neurons.

Remimazolam is an ultra-short benzodiazepine that acts on the benzodiazepine site of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors in the brain and induces sedation. Although GABA receptors are found localized in the spinal dorsal horn, no previous studies have reported the analgesic effects or investigated the cellular mechanisms of remimazolam on the spinal dorsal horn. Behavioral measures, immunohistochemistry, and in vitro whole-cell patch-clamp recordings of dorsal horn neurons were used to assess synaptic transmission. Intrathecal injection of remimazolam induced behavioral analgesia in inflammatory pain-induced mechanical allodynia (six rats/dose; p < 0.05). Immunohistochemical staining revealed that remimazolam suppressed spinal phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation (five rats/group, p < 0.05). In vitro whole-cell patch-clamp analysis demonstrated that remimazolam increased the frequency of GABAergic miniature inhibitory post-synaptic currents, prolonged the decay time (six rats; p < 0.05), and enhanced GABA currents induced by exogenous GABA (seven rats; p < 0.01). However, remimazolam did not affect miniature excitatory post-synaptic currents or amplitude of monosynaptic excitatory post-synaptic currents evoked by Aδ- and C-fiber stimulation (seven rats; p > 0.05). This study suggests that remimazolam induces analgesia by enhancing GABAergic inhibitory transmission in the spinal dorsal horn, suggesting its potential utility as a spinal analgesic for inflammatory pain.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Hypotension after general anaesthesia induction using remimazolam or propofol in geriatric patients undergoing sevoflurane anaesthesia with remifentanil: a single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of hypotension after induction of general anaesthesia is common in geriatric patients, and should be prevented to minimise perioperative complications. Compared with propofol, remimazolam potentially has a lower incidence of hypotension. This study aimed to compare the incidence of hypotension after general anaesthesia induction with remimazolam or propofol in geriatric patients. METHODS: This single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial enrolled 90 patients aged ≥80 yr who received general anaesthesia for scheduled surgery. Patients were randomised to receive remimazolam (12 mg kg-1 h-1) or propofol (0.025 mg kg-1 s-1) for anaesthesia induction, with remifentanil and sevoflurane. The presence or absence of hypertension on the ward served as the stratification factor. The incidence of hypotension after the induction of general anaesthesia, defined as a noninvasive mean arterial pressure of <65 mm Hg measured every minute from initiation of drug administration to 3 min after tracheal intubation, was the primary outcome. Subgroup analysis was performed for the primary outcome using preoperative ward hypertension, clinical frailty scale, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and age. RESULTS: Three subjects were excluded before drug administration, and 87 subjects were included in the analysis. The incidence of hypotension was 72.1% (31/43) and 72.7% (32/44) with remimazolam or propofol, respectively. No statistically significant differences (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-2.46; P=0.93) were observed between groups. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with propofol, remimazolam did not reduce the incidence of hypotension after general anaesthesia induction in patients aged ≥80 yr. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000042587.

A new pharmacological approach for tracheal intubation?

Anaesthesia induced with remimazolam and a fentanyl-series opioid can be reversed with flumazenil and naloxone. Concomitant paralysis with rocuronium can facilitate tracheal intubation whilst being reversible with sugammadex. Together, this combination might offer full reversibility of a 'routine' or a 'rapid-sequence' induction anaesthesia. Whether this is useful, or even safe, requires careful evaluation.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Remimazolam Compared with Placebo in Japanese Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Phase III, Investigator-Initiated Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an investigator-initiated clinical trial in which remimazolam was used to achieve sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopies. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III investigator-initiated trial included patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation with remimazolam (initial dose: 3 mg; additional dose: 1 mg) or normal saline (placebo). The primary endpoint of the study was the successful sedation rate during colonoscopy, defined as achieving a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score of ≤4 before the procedure, maintaining this score throughout colonoscopy, and requiring no more than five additional drug doses per 15 min. RESULTS: The sedation success rate was 95.0% (38/40 patients) in the remimazolam group and 0.0% (0/11 patients) in the placebo group (p < 0.01). The time from the end of procedure to regaining consciousness was 0.0 (interquartile range: 0.0-0.0) min in both groups. The time from the end of the procedure to ambulation was 5.0 (interquartile range: 0.0-10.0) min in the remimazolam group and 0.0 (interquartile range: 0.0-0.0) min in the placebo group (p = 0.02). Serious adverse events were not observed. CONCLUSION: The use of remimazolam to achieve sedation in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy was more effective than placebo.

Remimazolam has similar anesthetic effect and superior safety compared to propofol in elderly patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The superiority between remimazolam and propofol for anesthesia is controversial in elderly patients (≥60 years). This meta-analysis aimed to systematically compare anesthetic effect and safety profile between remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients under any surgery. METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched until December 25, 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Ten studies with 806 patients receiving remimazolam (experimental group) and 813 patients receiving propofol (control group) were included. Time to loss of consciousness [standard mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.347 (-0.362, 3.055), p = 0.122] and recovery time [SMD (95% CI): -0.022 (-0.300, 0.257), p = 0.879] were similar between experimental and control groups. Mean arterial pressure at baseline minus 1 min after induction [SMD (95% CI): -1.800 (-3.250, -0.349), p = 0.015], heart rate at baseline minus 1 min after induction [SMD (95% CI): -1.041 (-1.537, -0.545), p < 0.001], incidences of hypoxemia [relative risk (RR) (95% CI): 0.247 (0.138, 0.444), p < 0.001], respiratory depression [RR (95% CI): 0.458 (0.300, 0.700), p < 0.001], bradycardia [RR (95% CI): 0.409 (0.176, 0.954), p = 0.043], hypotension [RR (95% CI): 0.415 (0.241, 0.714), p = 0.007], and injection pain [RR (95% CI): 0.172 (0.113, 0.263), p < 0.001] were lower in the experimental group compared to the control group. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was not different between groups [RR (95% CI): 1.194 (0.829, 1.718), p = 0.341]. Moreover, this meta-analysis displayed a low risk of bias, minimal publication bias, and good robustness. CONCLUSION: Remimazolam shows comparative anesthetic effect and better safety profile than propofol in elderly patients under any surgery.

Comparison of the recovery time of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation in elderly patients.

Background: Recovery time is a crucial factor in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of both patients and endoscopy centers. Propofol is often preferred due to its fast onset and minimal side effects. Remimazolam is a new intravenous sedative agent, characterized by its rapid onset of action, quick recovery and organ-independent metabolism. Importantly, its effect can be specifically antagonized by flumazenil. The primary goal of this study is to compare the recovery time of remimazolam besylate and propofol anesthesia during endoscopic procedures in elderly patients. Methods: 60 patients aged 65-95 years who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly and equally assigned to two groups: the remimazolam group (Group R) and the propofol group (Group P). The primary measure was the recovery time, defined as the time from discontinuing remimazolam or propofol until reaching an Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale (OAA/S) score of 5 (responds readily to name spoken in normal tone). The time required to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 (responds after name spoken loudly or repeatedly along with glazed marked ptosis) was also recorded and compared. Results: The recovery time for Group R (2.6 ± 1.6 min) was significantly shorter than that for Group P (10.8 ± 3.0 min), with a 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.949-9.431 min, p <0.001. Similarly, the time to attain an OAA/S score of 3 was significantly less in Group R (1.6 ± 0.9 min) compared to Group P (9.6 ± 2.6 min), with a 95% CI: 6.930-8.957 min, p <0.001. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that remimazolam anesthesia combined with flumazenil antagonism causes a shorter recovery time for elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to propofol. Remimazolam followed by flumazenil antagonism provides a promising alternative to propofol for geriatric patients, particularly during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Comparison emergence of sedation, using dexmedetomidine and remimazolam, in spinal anaesthesia - double blinded randomized controlled trial.

Background: Continuous intravenous infusion of remimazolam may be suitable for sedation in patients undergoing regional anaesthesia. However, there have been no studies comparing remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for this purpose. This study compared emergence from sedation between dexmedetomidine and remimazolam following continuous intravenous infusion in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Methods: This double-blinded, randomised controlled trial assessed the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam. Following spinal anaesthesia, patients were sedated using continuous intravenous infusion of either dexmedetomidine (D group) or remimazolam (R group).The D group received dexmedetomidine administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 µg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 µg/kg/h). The R group received remimazolam administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 mg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 mg/kg/h). Sedation levels were evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 3 from the start of drug infusion and the time to reach MOAA/S = 5 from the end of infusion were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate were also monitored. Results: The R group reached MOAA/S ≤ 3 significantly faster than the D group during induction of sedation (4 ± 1 minutes and 11 ± 3 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The R group also reached MOAA/S = 5 significantly faster than the D group during emergence from sedation (11 ± 3 minutes and 16 ± 5 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). Both groups maintained stable hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate without any significant differences, although the mean heart rate was significantly lower in the D group than in the R group after the start of infusion. Conclusion: Remimazolam demonstrated significantly faster induction of and emergence from sedation compared to dexmedetomidine, with no significant differences in haemodynamics or respiratory depression.

Comparison of the negative effect of remimazolam and propofol on cardiac contractility: Analysis of a randomised parallel-group trial and a preclinical ex vivo study.

Remimazolam is a newly developed ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that exerts sedative effects. This study aimed to clarify the effects of remimazolam on cardiac contractility. In a randomised-parallel group trial, haemodynamic parameters were compared between propofol (n = 11) and remimazolam (n = 12) groups during the induction of general anaesthesia in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. In a preclinical study, the direct effects of remimazolam on cardiac contractility were also evaluated using isolated rat hearts. RNA sequence data obtained from rat and human hearts were analysed to assess the expression patterns of the cardiac γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA ) receptor subunits. In a clinical study, the proportional change of the maximum rate of arterial pressure rise was milder during the study period in the remimazolam group (propofol: -52.6 [10.2] (mean [standard deviation])% vs. remimazolam: -39.7% [10.5%], p = 0.007). In a preclinical study, remimazolam did not exert a negative effect on left ventricle developed pressure, whereas propofol did exert a negative effect after bolus administration of a high dose (propofol: -26.9% [3.5%] vs. remimazolam: -1.1 [6.9%], p < 0.001). Analysis of the RNA sequence revealed a lack of γ subunits, which are part of the major benzodiazepine binding site of the GABAA receptor, in rat and human hearts. These results indicate that remimazolam does not have a direct negative effect on cardiac contractility, which might contribute to its milder effect on cardiac contractility during the induction of general anaesthesia. The expression patterns of cardiac GABAA receptor subunits might be associated with the unique pharmacokinetics of benzodiazepines in the heart.

Remimazolam for sedation and anesthesia in children: Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a novel intravenous benzodiazepine recently approved by both the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Agency, holds significant promise in clinical practice. Its pharmacodynamic profile closely mirrors that of midazolam, while its pharmacokinetics properties bear resemblance to remifentanil. Research in adult populations continues to accumulate, but the pediatric studies' pace is not significant. This scoping review aims to methodically scrutinize published studies, clinical trials, observational research, case reports, and pertinent literature to offer a comprehensive insight into the existing understanding of remimazolam in pediatric sedation and anesthesia. The synthesis of gathered evidence will discern lacunae in the literature, direct forthcoming investigations, and enlighten clinical practices. METHODS: The review will adhere to the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for Scoping Review. A meticulous search strategy will be executed across prominent peer-reviewed databases, with concerted efforts to identify relevant gray literature. All primary investigations involving the administration of remimazolam in pediatric populations will be encompassed within the scope of this review. RESULTS: The encompassed studies will be elucidated through a narrative synopsis, complemented by descriptive statistical analyses of quantitative data where deemed applicable. CONCLUSION: The planned scoping review aims to delineate the existing evidence regarding the utilization of remimazolam in pediatric anesthesia and sedation. It will discern areas of knowledge deficiency, provide guidance for future inquiries, and enhance clinical practices within the field.

Remimazolam for sedation and anesthesia in children: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a novel intravenous benzodiazepine recently approved by both the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Agency, shows considerable promise in clinical practice. Its pharmacodynamic profile closely resembles that of midazolam, while its pharmacokinetic properties are similar to those of remifentanil. While research in adult populations continues to accumulate, the pace of pediatric studies is not as significant. This scoping review aims to systematically examine published studies, clinical trials, observational research, case reports, and relevant literature to provide a comprehensive understanding of remimazolam in pediatric sedation and anesthesia. By synthesizing the gathered evidence, we aim to identify gaps in the literature, guide future research endeavors, and inform clinical practices. METHODS: The review follows the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Review. A thorough search strategy was implemented across prominent peer-reviewed databases, with focused efforts to identify relevant grey literature. All primary studies involving the use of remimazolam in pediatric populations were included in this review. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in this analysis, comprising 2 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective cohort trials, 12 case reports, and 692 children in total. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the increasing interest in using remimazolam as a sedative or anesthetic for children. Although initial evidence indicates its effectiveness and safety, more research is necessary to fill knowledge gaps, establish standard protocols, and optimize its use in pediatric anesthesia and sedation. Addressing these challenges will enable clinicians to improve the quality of care and outcomes for pediatric patients undergoing sedation and anesthesia.

The clinical role of remimazolam: Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, shows promise as an alternative to traditional sedatives and hypnotic agents in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. While preliminary research indicates potential advantages over conventional agents, such as faster onset, predictable duration, and improved safety profile, the extent and quality of existing evidence remain unclear. This scoping review aims to investigate the current clinical role of remimazolam and provide a broad and comprehensive overview. METHODS: The proposed review will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted across major peer-reviewed databases and grey literature will be sought. All studies involving individuals undergoing procedural sedation or general anaesthesia with remimazolam will be eligible. Data extraction will encompass trial and participant characteristics, intervention details, reported outcomes, comparative efficacy versus midazolam and propofol, patient and operator experience and economic costs. RESULTS: We will provide a descriptive summary supplemented by statistics, figures and tables where applicable. CONCLUSION: The outlined scoping review aims to assess the clinical use of remimazolam in procedural sedation and as the hypnotic component of general anaesthesia. The review will map the current body of evidence of remimazolam and identify knowledge gaps, contributing to understanding its clinical implications and guiding future research efforts in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia.

Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Remimazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non-inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) -6.28% (-8.89-infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who were ASA physical status 3 or 4, the anaesthetic effect of remimazolam was non-inferior to propofol.

A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA: REST trial design.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, but its safety and efficacy during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) remains undetermined. The REST trial (NCT06275594) will be a prospective randomized study of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA with conscious sedation. The primary aim is to evaluate whether remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during EBUS-TBNA compared to real-world midazolam and on-label midazolam. METHODS: The REST trial will recruit 330 patients from four university hospitals with mediastinal lesions suspected of being lung cancer who are eligible for EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. The participants will be randomized into groups using remimazolam, real-world midazolam, and on-label midazolam (US prescribing information dosage) to perform EBUS-TBNA for procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be procedural success using composite measures. DISCUSSION: The REST trial will prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam during EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. It will provide information for optimizing sedation modalities and contribute to practical benefits in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06275594). Prospectively registered on 15 February 2024.

Safety and effcacy of remimazolam tosilate for sedation during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for orthopedic procedures: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Remimazolam in the context of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for sedation during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (N = 80), who were randomly allocated to receive either dexmedetomidine (Group-D) or remimazolam (Group-R). The target sedation range aimed for a Ramsay score of 2-5 or a BIS value of 60-80 to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam during sedation. RESULTS: The time taken to achieve the desired level of sedation was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group compared to the dexmedetomidine group (3.69 ± 0.75 vs. 9.59 ± 1.03; P < 0.0001). Patients in the remimazolam group exhibited quicker recovery, fewer intraoperative adverse events, more consistent vital signs, and greater satisfaction at various time points throughout the surgery. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study demonstrates that remimazolam tosilate serves as a safe and effective sedative for orthopedic surgery performed under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, in comparison with dexmedetomidine.

The effects of remimazolam combined with sufentanil on respiration, circulation and sedation level in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The main sedative which is propofol in painless gastroenteroscopy, has a high risk of reducing blood pressure and respiratory depression. Remimazolam (a short-acting benzodiazepine) is expected to be widely used in painless gastroenteroscopy due to its rapid onset, rapid metabolism and light respiratory and circulation inhibition. METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled study, 123 outpatients who were undergoing painless colonoscopy and ramdomly divided into group A, B and C, in Hangzhou First People's Hospital, July-December 2021. All patients were intravenously injected with 5 µg sufentanil for analgesic preconditioning. The group A was induced by 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam besylate. The group B was induced by 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate. And the group C was inducted by 2.0 mg /kg propofol. If the patients had limb movement or MOAA/S score > 3 and so on, remimazolam besylate was added at 2.5 mg/ time in group A and B, and propofol emulsion injection was added at 0.5 mg/kg/ time in group C. During the operation, according to the actual situation, remimazolam was per added 2.5 mg in the experimental group, and propofol was 0.5 mg/kg in the control group. Heart rate (HR), non-invasive blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), and improved vigilance/sedation score (MOAA/S) of patients was recorded from entering endoscopy room to get out of the anesthesia recovery room, also including perioperative adverse events, other medications or treatments, the time of patients waking up and leaving the hospital. RESULTS: The successful rate of induction in three groups was 100%. There was no significant difference in the sedation completion rate among the three groups (Group A:90.2%, Group B: 92.7%, Group C: 92.7%, P = 1.000). The rate of adverse events after administration: group A(27.0%) and B(36.8%) both lower than group C(71.0%),P < 0.001;There was no significant difference between group A and group B, P > 0.744;The average time from the last drug administration to meet the discharge criteria of the subjects in three groups was as follows: The average time of group A(16.2 min) and Group B(16.5 min) both shorter than group C(19.6 min), P = 0.001; There was no significant difference between group A and group B, P = 0.742. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that remimazolam is a safe and effective medication for colonoscopy sedation, the security of remimazolam is better than propofol, and the sedative effect with the initial dose of 0.25 mg/kg of remimazolam is optimal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: China Clinical Trial Center with registration number: 2100052615,02/11/2021.

Comparison of remimazolam tosilate and propofol during induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, single center, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of RT for general anesthesia in patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: In this study, 122 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to receive either remimazolam tosilate (Group RT) or propofol group (Group P). RT was administered as a slow bolus of 0.3 mg kg- 1 for induction, followed by 1.0-2.0 mg kg- 1 h- 1 for maintenance of general anesthesia. Propofol was started at 2 mg kg- 1 and followed by 4-10 mg kg- 1 h- 1 until the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the time to bispectral index (BIS) ≤ 60. The secondary outcome included the time to loss of consciousness (LoC), and the time to extubation. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients were recruited for study participation. Among them, the time to BIS ≤ 60 in Group RT was longer than that in Group P (Group RT: 89.3 ± 10.7 s; Group P: 85.9 ± 9.7 s, P > 0.05). While the time to LoC comparing remimazolam and propofol showed no statistical significance (Group RT: 74.4 ± 10.3 s; Group P: 74.7 ± 9.3 s, P > 0.05). The time to extubation in Group RT was significantly longer than that in Group P (Group RT: 16.0 ± 2.6 min; Group P: 8.8 ± 4.3 min, P < 0.001). Remimazolam tosilate had more stable hemodynamics and a lower incidence of hypotension during general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam tosilate can be safely and effectively used for general anesthesia in patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. It maintains stable hemodynamics during induction and maintenance of general anesthesia compared with propofol. Further studies are needed to validate the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2300071256 (date of registration: 09/05/2023).

The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, this study aims to determine the 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam to inhibit responses to insertion of a duodenoscope during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: A dose-response study was carried out undergoing ERCP who received remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia using 10 µg/kg of alfentanil between September 2021 and November 2021. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.2 mg/kg. The dose was then decided based on the responses of earlier patients by exploiting the sequential ascend and descend according to a 9: 1 biased coin design. Upon failure, the dose of remimazolam was increased by 0.025 mg/kg in the next patient. When the insertion was successful, the succeeding patient was randomized to an identical dose or a dose that was lower by 0.025 mg/kg.The ED90 of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP was calculated. Adverse events and complications of remimazolam were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 55 elderly patients (age > 65) were included in the study. 45 successfully anesthetized patients, and 10 unsuccessfully. The ED90 of remimazolam was 0.300 mg/kg (95% CI = 0.287-0.320). ED95 was 0.315 (95% CI = 0.312-0.323) and ED99 was 0.323 (95% CI = 0.323-0.325). Among the patients, 9 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed bradycardia and 1 patient developed tachycardia, and hypoxia occurred in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: A loading dose of 0.300 mg / kg of remimazolam for elderly patients undergoing ERCP can safely, effectively, and quickly induce patients to fall asleep and inhibit responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered at the website ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/09/2021(NCT05053763).