Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence. METHODS: Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Comparison of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for intraoperative sedation in patients undergoing lower extremity surgery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine sedation has advantages, such as low incidence of respiratory depression and prolonged block duration, but also significant disadvantages, such as slow onset, high rate of sedation failure, and a long context-sensitive half-life. Remimazolam provides rapid sedation and recovery, high sedation efficacy and has minimal hemodynamic effects. We hypothesized that patients who received remimazolam would require less rescue midazolam than dexmedetomidine. METHODS: Patients (n=103) scheduled for surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (DEX group) or remimazolam (RMZ group) targeting a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3 or 4. Rescue midazolam was administered if the patient failed to be sedated after the initial loading dose or despite infusion rate adjustment. RESULTS: Rescue midazolam administration was significantly higher in the DEX group (0% vs 39.2%; p<0.001). Patients in the RMZ group reached the target sedation level more rapidly. The incidences of bradycardia (0% vs 25.5%; p<0.001) and hypertension (0% vs 21.6%; p<0.001) were higher in the DEX group. Respiratory depression occurred at a higher rate in the RMZ group (21.2% vs 2.0%; p=0.002), but no patients required manual ventilation. Patients in the RMZ group recovered faster, had a shorter PACU stay and higher satisfaction scores. Hypotensive episodes in the PACU were more frequent in the DEX group (1.9% vs 29.4%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam showed excellent sedation efficacy, minimal hemodynamic effects, and fewer adverse events in the PACU than dexmedetomidine. However, it is important to note that respiratory depression was more frequent with the use of remimazolam. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05447507.

Pulsed-field versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation-Impact of energy source on sedation and analgesia requirement.

INTRODUCTION: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) represents a novel, nonthermal energy modality that can be applied for single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Comparative data with regard to deep sedation to established single-shot modalities such as cryoballoon (CB) ablation are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare a deep sedation protocol in patients receiving PVI with either PFA or CB. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive AF patients undergoing PVI with a pentaspline PFA catheter were compared to a retrospective CB-PVI cohort of the same timeframe. Study endpoints were the requirements of analgesics, cardiorespiratory stability, and sedation-associated complications. RESULTS: A total of 100 PVI patients were included (PFA n = 50, CB n = 50, mean age 66 ± 10.6, 61% male patients, 65% paroxysmal AF). Requirement of propofol, midazolam, and sufentanyl was significantly higher in the PFA group compared to CB [propofol 0.14 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.11 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .001); midazolam 0.00086 ± 0.0004 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0006295 ± 0.0003 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .002) and sufentanyl 0.0013 ± 0.0007 µg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0008 ± 0.0004 µg/kg/min in CB (p < .0001)]. Sedation-associated complications did not differ between both groups (PFA n = 1/50 mild aspiration pneumonia, CB n = 0/50, p > .99). Nonsedation-associated complications (PFA: n = 2/50, 4%, CB: n = 1/50, 2%, p > .99) and procedure times (PFA 75 ± 31, CB 84 ± 32 min, p = .18) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PFA is associated with higher sedation and especially analgesia requirements. However, the safety of deep sedation does not differ to CB ablation.

The association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium - a retrospective cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium in a large retrospective cohort of patients ≥70 years. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients ≥70 years having elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia from 2020 to 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Midazolam premedication, defined as intravenous midazolam administration prior to induction of general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome, postoperative delirium, was a collapsed composite outcome including at least one of the following: a positive 4A's test during post-anesthesia care unit stay and/or the initial 2 postoperative days; physician or nursing records reporting new-onset confusion as captured by the CHART-DEL instrument; or a positive 3D-CAM test. The association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium was assessed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding variables. As secondary analysis, we investigated the association between midazolam premedication and a composite of other postoperative complications. Several sensitivity analyses were performed using similar regression models. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 1973 patients were analyzed (median age 75 years, 47% women, 50% ASA score ≥ 3, 32% high risk surgery). The overall incidence of postoperative delirium was 15.3% (302/1973). Midazolam premedication was administered to 782 (40%) patients (median [IQR] dose 2 [1,2] mg). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, midazolam premedication was not associated with increased odds of postoperative delirium, with adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.45; P = 0.538). Midazolam premedication was also not associated with the composite of other postoperative complications. Furthermore, no association was found between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium in any of the sensitivity analyses preformed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that low doses of midazolam can be safely used to pre-medicate elective surgical patients 70 years or older before non-cardiac surgery, without significant effect on the risk of developing postoperative delirium.

Preoperative Midazolam and Patient-Centered Outcomes of Older Patients: The I-PROMOTE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of oral midazolam premedication on patient satisfaction in older patients undergoing surgery is unclear, despite its widespread use. Objective: To determine the differences in global perioperative satisfaction in patients with preoperative administration of oral midazolam compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 9 German hospitals between October 2017 and May 2019 (last follow-up, June 24, 2019). Eligible patients aged 65 to 80 years who were scheduled for elective inpatient surgery for at least 30 minutes under general anesthesia and with planned extubation were enrolled. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive oral midazolam, 3.75 mg (n = 309), or placebo (n = 307) 30 to 45 minutes prior to anesthesia induction. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was global patient satisfaction evaluated using the self-reported Evaluation du Vécu de l'Anesthésie Generale (EVAN-G) questionnaire on the first postoperative day. Key secondary outcomes included sensitivity and subgroup analyses of the primary outcome, perioperative patient vital data, adverse events, serious complications, and cognitive and functional recovery up to 30 days postoperatively. Results: Among 616 randomized patients, 607 were included in the primary analysis. Of these, 377 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 71.9 (4.4) years. The mean (SD) global index of patient satisfaction did not differ between the midazolam and placebo groups (69.5 [10.7] vs 69.6 [10.8], respectively; mean difference, -0.2; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.6; P = .85). Sensitivity (per-protocol population, multiple imputation) and subgroup analyses (anxiety, frailty, sex, and previous surgical experience) did not alter the primary results. Secondary outcomes did not differ, except for a higher proportion of patients with hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg) at anesthesia induction in the placebo group. Conclusion and Relevance: A single low dose of oral midazolam premedication did not alter the global perioperative patient satisfaction of older patients undergoing surgery or that of patients with anxiety. These results may be affected by the low dose of oral midazolam. Further trials-including a wider population with commonplace low-dose intravenous midazolam and plasma level measurements-are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03052660.

Dexmedetomidine Might Exacerbate Acute Kidney Injury, While Midazolam Might Have a Postconditioning Effect: A Rat Model of Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Kidney Injury.

BACKGROUND: The preconditioning effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on septic acute kidney injury (AKI) have been reported, but the postconditioning effects remain unknown. This study investigated the postconditioning effects of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol on septic AKI. METHODS: Forty-eight male Wistar rats were intraperitoneally administered lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 8.3 mg kg-1) or normal saline. Twenty-four hours later, rats were allocated to specific anesthetic groups (n=6 each) and exposed for 6 h, as follows: C, control (no anesthetic); D, dexmedetomidine (5 µg kg-1 h-1); M, midazolam (0.6 mg kg-1 h-1); or P, propofol (10 mg kg-1 h-1). Serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (CysC) were measured at the end of anesthesia. Western blot and immunofluorescent analyses of kidney samples were performed. RESULTS: Among LPS-treated groups, D group showed worsened renal dysfunction (L-C vs L-D: Cr, P=0.002, effect size (η2) =0.83; CysC, P=0.004, η2=0.71), whereas M group showed improved renal function (L-C vs L-M: Cr, P=0.009, η2=0.55). In immunofluorescent analysis of renal tubules, D group showed increased expression of nuclear factor κB (NFκΒ) (L-C vs L-D: NFκΒ, P=0.002, η2=0.75; phospho-NFκΒ, P=0.018, η2=0.66) and inhibitor of κ light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cell kinase ß (IKKß) (L-C vs L-D: IKKß, P=0.002, η2=0.59; phospho-IKKα/ß, P=0.004, η2=0.59), whereas M group showed decreased NFκB expression (L-C vs L-M: NFκB, P=0.003, η2=0.55; phospho-NFκB, P=0.013, η2=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine administration might worsen septic AKI, while midazolam might preserve kidney function via the NFκΒ pathway.

Comparison of S-ketamine and midazolam for intravenous preoperative sedative and anxiolytic effects in preschool children: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anxiety management is gaining particular attention in paediatric anaesthesia. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological resorts can be implemented to address this special issue. Despite the various approaches currently used for preoperative sedation in children, the different sedative and anti-anxiety effects between the newly marketed anaesthetic, S-ketamine, and the traditional sedative, midazolam, are still unclear. METHODS: This is a patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Participants (n = 110) will receive S-ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.08 mg/kg) intravenously administrated at a ratio of 1:1 in the anaesthesia holding area. The primary outcome of this study is the sedative effect evaluated via the change in the modified Yale preoperative anxiety scale. It will be performed at two timepoints: in the pre-anaesthetic holding area before premedication (baseline, marked as T0) and about 5 min after premedication in the operating room without the existence of their guardians (marked as T1). Our secondary objectives include the parent separation anxiety score, postoperative agitation, caregivers' and anaesthesia care providers' satisfaction, and mask compliance. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial is the first study to compare the anti-anxiety effect of intravenous S-ketamine and midazolam. We will provide a new approach for the clinical management of preoperative anxiety in preschool children posted for elective surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300069998. Registered on 30 March 2023.

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam compared with midazolam during bronchoscopy: a single-center, randomized controlled study.

Although remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine with a shorter elimination half-life and faster recovery time than midazolam, studies evaluating its safety and efficacy during bronchoscopy are limited. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam with those of midazolam for bronchoscopy. This prospective randomized parallel-group study was conducted at a single institution. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the procedure to full alertness. Other procedural time parameters, satisfaction profiles, and adverse effects were thoroughly evaluated. The time taken to reach peak sedation and the time from the end of the procedure to full alertness was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group than in the midazolam group (median [interquartile range], 2 min [1-4] vs. 3 min [2-5], P = 0.006; and median, 2 min [1-5] vs. 5 min [1-12], P = 0.035, respectively). In patients with non-biopsy procedures (n = 79), participant satisfaction was significantly higher in the remimazolam group than in the midazolam group (median rated scale, 10 vs. 7, P = 0.042). Physician satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were similar between groups. Although the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the groups and there was no significant difference, the midazolam group had a higher antidote administration rate than the remimazolam group (15.7% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.092). Remimazolam is effective and safe for achieving adequate sedation, with a shorter onset time and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam. It may be a new option for sedation during bronchoscopy.Trial registration: The trial registration number is NCT05994547, and the date of first registration is 16/08/2023.

Transcutaneous gas monitoring is a useful tool to detect respiratory depression during bronchoscopy performed under propofol sedation.

BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is a relatively invasive procedure where patients are often sedated. However, adequate sedation is not always achieved. Propofol is often used for difficult-to-sedate patients undergoing bronchoscopy despite a potential risk of respiratory depression. Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (tcpCO2) monitoring, introduced recently, is recognized as a convenient surrogate method for continuous monitoring of the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2). This study examined the safety of switching to propofol during bronchoscopy by using transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring. METHODS: Patients in whom transcutaneous gas monitoring had been performed during bronchoscopy were included in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: 1) the midazolam + fentanyl group (MF group), and 2) the group in which midazolam was switched to propofol owing to inadequate sedation obtained with midazolam + fentanyl (MFP group). We retrospectively analyzed the transcutaneous gas measurement data collected in patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy. RESULTS: This study included 61 (MF, n = 41; MFP, n = 20) patients. The duration of elevated tcpCO2 (>50 mm Hg) was greater in the MFP group (MF 8.5 min vs. MFP 22.1 min, p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Switching midazolam to propofol during bronchoscopy was significantly associated with a higher risk of elevated tcpCO2, which is indicative of respiratory depression. Therefore, continuous tcpCO2 monitoring is required to ensure the safety of patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy.

Association Between the Use of Midazolam During Cardiac Anesthesia and the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Nationwide Database.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the intraoperative administration of midazolam and the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: The Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 years and older who underwent cardiovascular surgery (excluding transcatheter surgeries, multiple surgeries per admission, and preoperative delirium) between April 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients who received midazolam (midazolam group) were compared with those who did not receive midazolam (no midazolam group). The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, mortality, and duration of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression based on the covariates. The outcomes were compared using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighting analyses. Among the 16,185 patients analyzed, 10,633 (65.7%) received midazolam. No significant differences were observed in the incidences of postoperative delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.03; p = 0.21) and hospital mortality (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.11; p = 0.39) between the groups; however, the midazolam group had slightly longer durations of intensive care unit stay (3.5 [3.5-3.6] v 3.3 [3.3-3.4] days, p < 0.001) and hospitalization (31.5 [31.1-31.9] v 29.4 [28.8-29.9] days, p < 0.001), and slightly lower incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p = 0.03). The sensitivity analyses supported these results. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative administration of midazolam may not induce postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Effects of dexmedetomidine at different dosages on perioperative haemodynamics and postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement surgery under general anaesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine could provide some advantages to prevent postoperative complications in elderly patients undergoing under general anaesthesia. However, dexmedetomidine inhibits haemodynamics to some extent due to its sympathetic inhibition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on haemodynamics during surgery and recovery after general anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomly allocated into comparative groups (normal saline (NS) and midazolam (MD), n = 30) and dexmedetomidine groups at different doses (D0.25/D0.5/D0.75, n = 30). In the D0.25/D0.5/D0.75 groups, dexmedetomidine was administered at different initial loading doses (0.25/0.5/0.75 µg/kg for 15 min) following 0.5 µg/kg/h continuous infusion until the end of the operation. In the MD group, patients were administered 0.03 mg/kg midazolam at the beginning of anaesthesia induction. RESULTS: Compared to the MD and NS groups, there were significant decreases in MAP in the D0.5 and D0.75 groups at many time points, such as skin incision, end of operation, and from extubation until 30 min after extubation (P < 0.05); there were also significant decreases in HR in the D0.5 and D0.75 groups at time points including anaesthesia induction, end of operation, and from extubation to 2 h after operation (P < 0.05). In the D0.25 group, there were few differences in the changes in MAP and HR compared to the MD and NS groups during the entire perioperative period (P > 0.05). Moreover, the percentage of patients whose MAP and HR decreased > 20% of baseline was higher in the D0.75 and D0.5 groups than that in all other groups. Compared to the NS group, from the beginning to the end of the operation, the 95% confidence interval (CI) of RR for MAP below > 20% of baseline in the D0.5 and D0.75 groups was greater than 1. In particular, the CI of the RR in the D0.75 group was greater than 1 until the patient awoke from general anaesthesia (P < 0.05). In addition, the CI of the RR for HR below > 20% of baseline in the D0.5 group was greater than 1 compared to the NS group at the time of induction and extubation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the possibility of developing hypotension or bradycardia in the MD or D0.25 groups compared to the NS group (P > 0.05). The recovery quality of patients during the post-anaesthesia period was also observed. No differences were observed among all the groups in the time to awakening or extubation after general anaesthesia (P > 0.05). According to the Riker Sedation-agitated Scale, dexmedetomidine significantly alleviated emergency agitation or delirium compared to NS (P < 0.05). In addition, the scores in the D0.5 and D0.75 groups were lower than those in the D0.25 group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine could alleviate the agitation of elderly patients undergoing hip replacement after intravenous general anaesthesia combined with inhaled sevoflurane without delayed recovery. However, it is necessary to be vigilant about the haemodynamic inhibition of the drug at high dosages throughout the perioperative period. Dexmedetomidine 0.25-0.5 µg/kg as the initial loading dose followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h continuous infusion might provide comfortable recovery after general anaesthesia with slight haemodynamic inhibition. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, No. NCT05567523. Registered 05 October 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05567523?term=NCT05567523&draw=2&rank=1 .

Intranasal esketamine combined with oral midazolam provides adequate sedation for outpatient pediatric dental procedures: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe dental phobia or failure to cooperate with treatment are very common in outpatient pediatric dentistry. Personalized and appropriate noninvasive anesthesia methods can save medical expenses, improve treatment efficiency, reduce the anxiety of children, and improve the satisfaction of nursing staff. Currently, there is little conclusive evidence for noninvasive moderate sedation strategies in pediatric dental surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial was conducted from May 2022 to September 2022. Each child was first given midazolam oral solution 0.5 mg·kg -1 , and when the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score reached 4, a biased coin design up-down method was used to adjust the dose of esketamine. The primary outcome was the ED 95 and 95% CI of intranasal esketamine hydrochloride with midazolam 0.5 mg·kg -1 . Secondary outcomes included the onset time of sedation, treatment and awakening times, and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 60 children were enrolled; 53 children were successfully sedated but 7 were not. The ED 95 of intranasal esketamine with 0.5 mg·kg -1 midazolam oral liquid for the treatment of dental caries was 1.99 mg·kg -1 (95% CI 1.95-2.01 mg·kg -1 ). The mean onset time of sedation for all patients was 43.7±6.9 min. 15.0 (10-24.0) min for examination and 89.4±19.5 min for awakening. The incidence of intraoperative nausea and vomiting was 8.3%. Adverse reactions such as transient hypertension and tachycardia occurred during the operations. CONCLUSION: The ED 95 of intranasal esketamine with 0.5 mg·kg -1 midazolam oral liquid for the outpatient pediatric dentistry procedure under moderate sedation was 1.99 mg·kg -1 . For children aged 2-6 years with dental anxiety who require dental surgery, anesthesiologists may consider using midazolam oral solution combined with esketamine nasal drops for noninvasive sedation after a preoperative anxiety scale evaluation.

Impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sometimes experience disinhibition during bronchoscopy with sedation. However, the impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to examine the additive impact of pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam. METHODS: This retrospective study involved consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy between November 2019 and December 2020 (sedated with midazolam: Midazolam group) and between December 2020 and December 2021 (sedated with midazolam plus pethidine: Combination group). The severity of disinhibition was defined as follows: moderate, disinhibition that always needed restraints by assistants; and severe, disinhibition that needed antagonization of sedation by flumazenil to continue bronchoscopy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to match baseline characteristics between both groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching with depression, the type of bronchoscopic procedure, and the dose of midazolam, 142 patients matched in each group. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe disinhibition significantly decreased from 16.2% to 7.8% (P = 0.028) in the Combination group. The Combination group had significantly better scores for sensation after bronchoscopy and feelings toward bronchoscopy duration than did the Midazolam group. Although the minimum SpO2 during bronchoscopy was significantly lower (88.0 ± 6.2 mmHg vs. 86.7 ± 5.0 mmHg, P = 0.047) and the percentage of oxygen supplementation significantly increased (71.1% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.001) in the Combination group, no fatal complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adding pethidine could reduce disinhibition occurrence in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with midazolam, with better subjective patient outcomes during and after bronchoscopy. However, whether more patients may need oxygen supplementation and whether hypoxia occurs during bronchoscopy should be considered. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000042635.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of benzodiazepines for dyspnea in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: the role of benzodiazepines in relieving dyspnea in patients with cancer has not yet been established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea in patients with cancer. METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ichushi-Web were searched for articles published from database inception to 23 September 2019. Studies of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea were included. The primary outcome measure was the relief of dyspnea. The secondary outcome measures were anxiety, somnolence and severe adverse events. RESULTS: of 505 publications initially identified, two trials and one trial were included in the meta-analysis of midazolam alone and in combination with morphine, respectively. With regard to the relief of dyspnea, midazolam alone showed no significant difference compared with morphine alone, with a relative risk of 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.89). Meanwhile, midazolam plus morphine was significantly more effective than morphine alone, with a relative risk of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.75). For anxiety relief, a meta-analysis could not be performed because of insufficient data. The incidence of somnolence and severe adverse events was not significantly different between the experimental and control groups for either midazolam alone or in combination with morphine. CONCLUSIONS: benzodiazepines alone do not significantly improve dyspnea compared with opioids alone, but a combination of benzodiazepines and opioids may be more effective. Evidence from randomized controlled trials focusing on patients with cancer has not been generated in recent years. Further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials are required.

Hepatic Hilar Nerve Block for Adjunctive Analgesia during Percutaneous Thermal Ablation of Hepatic Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether hepatic hilar nerve block techniques reduce analgesic and sedation requirements during percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of hepatic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort analysis was performed of 177 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 33-86 years) who underwent percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors. All patients were treated utilizing local anesthetic and moderate sedation between November 2018 and November 2021 at a tertiary level hospital, with or without the administration of a hepatic hilar nerve block. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the administration of the hilar nerve block and fentanyl and midazolam dosages. RESULTS: A total of 114 (64%) patients received a hilar nerve block in addition to procedural sedation, and 63 (36%) patients received procedural sedation alone. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic and tumor characteristics between the cohorts. The procedure duration was longer in the hilar block cohort than in the unblocked cohort (median, 95 vs 82 minutes; P = .0012). The technical success rate (98% in both the cohorts, P = .93) and adverse event rate (11% vs 3%, P = .14) were not significantly different between the cohorts. After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, ablation modality, and procedure and ablation durations, hilar nerve blocks were associated with lower fentanyl (-18.4%, P = .0045) and midazolam (-22.7%, P = .0007) dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic hilar nerve blocks significantly decrease the fentanyl and midazolam requirements during thermal ablation of hepatic tumors, without a significant change in the technical success or adverse event rates.

Child Stress and Behaviour During Restorative Treatment under Non-Pharmacological Techniques and Sedation: A Case Series

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the behaviour and stress of children undergoing restorative treatment with and without sedation. Material and Methods: Participants were 14 healthy children aged between 2.5 and 6 years and with a history of dental behavioural management problems. In the dental treatment visit, the child was treated with non-pharmacological techniques, and in the second, moderate sedation was added. The child received the same procedure performed by a paediatric dentist in both visits: composite resin restoration using local anaesthesia and rubber dam isolation. In both visits, saliva was collected at the children's arrival at the dental clinic, during local anaesthesia and at the end of treatment. The visits were filmed for later analysis of behaviour according to the Ohio State University Behavioural Rating Scale. Results: About 78.5% of children improved their behaviour from the first to the second visit. The salivary cortisol curve of the first visit was maintained in the second visit for 21.4% of children but varied in the remaining participants. Conclusion: Most children presented better behaviour and less stress when sedation was added to non-pharmacological techniques during dental care.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Introduction: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Results: Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08). Conclusions: Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam.