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.

Effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Dexmedetomidine could be an ideal adjuvant to propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy because it provides both analgesia and sedation without respiratory depression. This study investigates the effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Ninety adult patients were randomly assigned to Group Control, Group DEX0.5 (0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) or Group DEX1.0 (1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine). Anaesthesia during endoscopy was implemented by plasma target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine. TCI concentration of the first patient for each group was 2.5 µg/mL and the consecutive adjacent concentration gradient was 0.5 µg/mL. Median effective concentration (EC50 ) of propofol by TCI for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the modified Dixon's up-and-down method. Cardiovascular variables were also measured. RESULTS: EC50 of propofol by TCI and 95% confidence interval (CI) for gastrointestinal endoscopy were 3.77 (3.48-4.09), 2.51 (2.27-2.78) and 2.10 (1.90-2.33) µg/mL in Group Control, Group DEX0.5 and Group DEX1.0, respectively. The average percent change from heart rate (HR) baseline was 2.8 (8.9), -7.4 (7.7) and -10.5 (8.8) (P < .001), and the average percent change from mean arterial pressure (MAP) baseline was -10.6 [-24.7; 3.5], -9.5 [-29.2; 11.4] and -4.0 [-27.3; 15.5] (P = .034) in Group Control, Group DEX0.5 and Group DEX1.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine reduced the EC50 of propofol by TCI. A 0.5-1 µg/kg dose of dexmedetomidine caused a decrease in HR without bradycardia. The decrease in dosage of propofol with increasing doses of dexmedetomidine caused more stable MAP. Dexmedetomidine is an ideal adjuvant drug to propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Relationship between age and remimazolam dose required for inducing loss of consciousness in older surgical patients.

Background: Remimazolam is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine for procedural sedation and general anaesthesia, characterised by rapid onset of action, quick recovery, and organ-independent metabolism. Older patients tend to sustain more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and worse perioperative prognoses after receiving remimazolam. However, few studies have investigated the appropriate dose of remimazolam for loss of consciousness (LOC) in geriatric patients. We designed this study to provide evidence for dose references and elucidate the relationship between age and remimazolam requirement for inducing LOC during anaesthesia induction. Methods: Exactly 120 patients scheduled for general surgery under general anaesthesia were included and divided into two groups: Group A (60 patients, 18-64 years) and Group B (60 patients, ≥ 65 years). LOC, defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score at 1 had been reached, emerged after all participants received a continuous infusion of remimazolam at a rate of 0.05 mg/kg/min. Results: The remimazolam required for inducing LOC was 0.26 and 0.19 mg/kg in groups A and B, respectively, and the remimazolam dose in group B decreased by 26.9% compared to group A. According to the bivariate linear correlation analysis, remimazolam requirement was negatively correlated with age. Multivariable linear regression models and further adjustments for potential impact factors indicated that age was an independent factor for the remimazolam dose required for LOC. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that age was significantly and independently correlated with the remimazolam requirement for inducing LOC. To obtain haemodynamic stability during the induction of general anaesthesia, appropriately reducing the remimazolam dose is recommended for geriatric patients.

The Impact of Age on Propofol Requirement for Inducing Loss of Consciousness in Elderly Surgical Patients.

It is generally accepted that geriatric patients are more sensitive to propofol than adults; thus, a dose-adjusted propofol is recommended for these patients during the induction of anesthesia. However, for patients aged 75 years and over, established guidelines for propofol induction doses do not provide dose references. To this end, we observed 80 surgical patients (female 39, male 41, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score I ∼ II) to access the appropriate dose of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness (LOC). Accordingly, patients were subdivided into group A (20 patients, 45-64 years), group B (20 patients, 65-74 years), group C (20 patients, 75-84 years), and group D (20 patients, ≥ 85 years). All patients received propofol (at a rate of 0.3 mg/kg/min) alone for inducing LOC, which was defined by loss of both eyelash reflex and verbal response. Compared with group A, the propofol requirement for LOC in Group B, C and D decreased by 14.8, 25.2 and 38.5%, respectively. Bivariate linear correlation analysis showed that propofol requirement was negatively correlated with age. After adjusting for potential confounders, age was still an independent factor affecting propofol requirement. In conclusion, the propofol requirement for inducing LOC decreased significantly in elderly patients. We demonstrated that age was an independent factor impacting propofol requirement for LOC during the induction of general anesthesia, implying that the propofol dose for anesthesia induction should be further reduced in elderly surgical patients, especially those aged 75 years and over.