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.

Comparison of Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Patients Managed with Therapeutic Hypothermia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Various antiplatelet drugs, such as clopidogrel and ticagrelor, are available on the market for use after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the efficacy of such drugs in patients being managed with therapeutic hypothermia (TH) has always been debated. In light of this controversy, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to enhance existing literature. Various databases were searched for potentially relevant studies from inception to April 2023, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest included risk of bleeding, stent thrombosis, and all-cause mortality. Five studies were shortlisted for inclusion into the meta-analysis, featuring a total of 245 patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Overall, no significant differences were noted when the use of clopidogrel and ticagrelor was compared in PCI patients being managed with TH. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in PCI patients being managed with TH. Despite existing studies claiming an altered efficacy of clopidogrel in such conditions, our meta-analytic findings could not prove this relationship. Due to the limited sample size, further comprehensive and randomized studies are encouraged to arrive at a robust conclusion.