Remimazolam versus propofol for deep sedation/anaesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Propofol is the most commonly used sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but is associated with cardiorespiratory suppression, particularly in elderly patients. Remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA(A) receptor agonist with minimal impact on cardiorespiratory suppression, and may be a viable alternative in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2020 and September 2021. Elderly patients (65-85 years of age) scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive remimazolam tosilate (300 mg/h) or propofol (3 g/h) in addition to 50-µg fentanyl, until the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) reached ≤1. MOAA/S was maintained at 0 or 1 throughout the procedure using 2.5 mg remimazolam or 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses in the two groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure at ≤90 mmHg or > 30% decline vs. the baseline). Bradycardia was defined as heart rate ≤50 per minute; respiratory depression was defined as respiratory rate <8 per minute and/or SpO2 < 90%. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients (161 men and 239 women; 70.4 ± 4.6 years of age) were enrolled (200 patients per group). Average body mass index was 22.2 ± 2.4 kg/m2 . The rate of hypotension was 36.5% in the remimazolam group and 69.6% in the propofol group (p < 0.001). The remimazolam group also had a lower rate of bradycardia (1.5% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001), respiratory depression (4.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.05) and pain at the injection site (0% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Remimazolam was associated with a lower rate of hypotension in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation/anaesthesia than propofol.

Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Does Not Affect Clinical Prognosis in Patients with Ectopic Pregnancy.

To assess the effects of restrictive transfusion strategy on hemoglobin (Hb) levels and prognosis in patients with ectopic pregnancy and severe hemorrhage undergoing emergency surgery, patient data were collected from 2012 to 2016. Following transfusion guidelines, restrictive transfusion was performed; at Hb levels of 60-70 to 100 g/L, transfusion was continued or not based on disease status. The patients were divided into four groups: blood loss < 400 ml (N1), 400-799 ml (N2), 800-1199 ml (N3), and ≥1200 ml (N4). Several prognosis parameters were assessed. Group N4 was further divided based on blood loss amounts (1200-1999, 2000-2999, 3000-3999, and 4000-5000 ml) for subgroup analyses. Blood loss, hemoglobin levels at discharge, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were not associated with patient prognostic parameters, including intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy, cure, and healing rates, and surgical complications and hospital stay. No statistically significant difference was obtained in hospital stay among N1, N2, and N3 groups. Compared with N1 patients, cases with blood loss ≥ 1200 ml had significantly longer hospital stay. Interestingly, hospital stay was correlated with surgical approach, location of pregnancy, and operation time. Restrictive transfusion strategy could be safely used for emergency surgery in ectopic pregnancy with acute blood loss.