Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients. METHODS: The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.

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.

La adición de midazolam intratecal al anestésico local mejora los bloqueos sensorial y motor y reduce la puntuación del dolor sin incrementar los efectos secundarios en la cirugía de miembros inferiores. Metaanálisis y revisión sistemática / Adding intrathecal midazolam to local anesthetics improves sensory and motor block and reduces pain score without increasing side effects in lower limb surgeries: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Este metaanálisis investiga el impacto de midazolam intratecal en la anestesia espinal, el control del dolor postoperatorio y los efectos secundarios relacionados con la anestesia en la cirugía de miembros inferiores. Realizamos una búsqueda en Medline, Science Direct, Google Scholar y Cochrane Library de los estudios que reportaron el inicio y la duración de los bloqueos sensorial y motor, el tiempo transcurrido hasta la primera solicitud de analgesia, el consumo de opioides durante 24h, el control del dolor postoperatorio y los efectos secundarios tras la administración de midazolam intratecal en pacientes sometidos a cirugía de miembros inferiores. Se identificaron 10 estudios, que se incluyeron en el metaanálisis. La revisión fue realizada siguiendo las directrices PRISMA, registrándose en la base de datos PROSPERO (ID-CRD42022346361) en agosto de 2022. Nuestros resultados muestran que los pacientes que reciben 1mg de midazolam intratecal reflejaron un tiempo de inicio de bloqueo significativamente más alto (p=0,001 [IC: −0,98, −0,31]), mayor duración de los bloqueos sensorial y motor (p<0,00001 [IC: 18,08, 39,12]; p=0,002 [IC: 0,45, 2]), y mayor tiempo transcurrido hasta la primera solicitud de analgesia de rescate (p=0,0003 [IC: 1,22, 4,14]). Las puntuaciones de dolor a las 4 y 12h postoperatorias fueron significativamente inferiores en los pacientes que recibieron midazolam intratecal (p=0,00001 [: −1,20, −0,47] y p=0,05 [IC: −0,52, −0,01] respectivamente). En conclusión, la adición de midazolam intratecal al anestésico local en la cirugía de miembros inferiores acorta el tiempo de inicio de los bloqueos sensorial y motor, incrementa la duración del bloqueo y prolonga el tiempo transcurrido hasta la primera solicitud de analgesia. Las puntuaciones del dolor a las 4 y 12horas postoperatorias fueron menores, no observándose efectos secundarios adicionales.(AU)

This meta-analysis was done to investigate the role of intrathecal midazolam in lower limb surgeries regarding prolongation of spinal block, postoperative pain control and associated side effects. The included studies reported onset and duration of sensory and motor block, time to first request analgesia, 24hours opioid consumption, postoperative pain control, and associated side effects following use of intrathecal midazolam for lower limb surgeries. This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines and using the online databases, Medline, Science Direct, Google scholar and Cochrane library. We registered this review with the PROSPERO database (ID-CRD42022346361) in August 2022. A total of 10 randomised controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed patients receiving 1mg intrathecal midazolam showed significantly faster onset of sensory block (P=.001 [CI: −0.98, −0.31]). Duration of sensory and motor block were also significantly prolonged in intrathecal midazolam group (P<.00001 [CI: 18.08, 39.12], P=.002 [CI: 0.45, 2]). Intrathecal midazolam also increased the time to first request analgesia (P=.0003 [CI: 1.22, 4.14]). Pain scores at 4 and 12hours postoperatively were significantly lower in patients receiving intrathecal midazolam (P=.00001[CI: −1.20, −0.47] and P=0.05 [CI: −0.52, −0.01] respectively). In conclusion, the addition of intrathecal midazolam to local anesthetics in lower limb surgeries results in early onset of sensory and motor block. It also increases the duration of sensory and motor block. The time to first request analgesia is increased. VAS pain scores at 4 and 12hours postoperatively were also lower without any increased side effects.(AU)

Seizures in 3 juvenile dogs after intravenous anesthetic drug withdrawal during weaning from mechanical ventilation suspected to be a sign of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To describe seizure activity in juvenile dogs successfully weaned from long-term mechanical ventilation. CASE SERIES SUMMARY: Three juvenile dogs (all approximately 3 months old) underwent long-term mechanical ventilation with IV anesthesia for suspected noncardiogenic pulmonary edema. Within 24 hours of extubation and within 10 hours of discontinuing midazolam continuous infusions, all dogs experienced seizures, which is 1 sign of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Each dog was treated with an anticonvulsant protocol, and none experienced seizures after being discharged. NEW OR UNIQUE INFORMATION PROVIDED: Each dog received IV anesthesia, including fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol, during mechanical ventilation and subsequently experienced seizures after successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Juvenile dogs may be at risk for seizures after weaning from mechanical ventilation and IV anesthesia. Neurological monitoring and further research into an appropriate weaning protocol may prove beneficial in juvenile dogs requiring prolonged anesthesia.

Cognitive outcomes from the randomised, active-controlled Ketamine for Adult Depression Study (KADS).

BACKGROUND: Due to its rapid antidepressant effect, ketamine has recently been clinically translated for people with treatment-resistant depression. However, its cognitive profile remains unclear, particularly with repeated and higher doses. In the present study, we report the cognitive results from a recent large multicentre randomised controlled trial, the Ketamine for Adult Depression Study (KADS). METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multicentre phase 3 trial study we investigated potential cognitive changes following repeated treatment of subcutaneous racemic ketamine compared to an active comparator, midazolam, over 4 weeks, which involved two cohorts; Cohort 1 involved a fixed dose treatment protocol (0.5 mg/kg ketamine), Cohort 2 involved a dose escalation protocol (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) based on mood outcomes. Participants with treatment-resistant Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were recruited from 7 mood disorder centres and were randomly assigned to receive ketamine (Cohort 1 n = 33; Cohort 2 n = 53) or midazolam (Cohort 1 n = 35; Cohort 2 n = 53) in a 1:1 ratio. Cognitive measurements were assessed at baseline and at the end of randomised treatment. RESULTS: Results showed that in Cohort 1, there were no differences between ketamine and midazolam in cognitive outcomes. For Cohort 2, there was similarly no difference between conditions for cognitive outcomes. LIMITATIONS: The study included two Cohorts with different dosing regimes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the cognitive safety of repeated fixed and escalating doses at least in the short-term in people with treatment resistant MDD.

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.

Retrospective Evaluation of Moderate Sedation Visits That Used Oral Meperidine and Hydroxyzine With Oral or Intranasal Midazolam.

Purpose: To examine the influence of substituting intranasal (IN) midazolam (MID) for oral (PO) MID, within the three-drug combination of meperidine (MEP), hydroxyzine (H) and MID, on sedation treatment outcomes. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis examined patient variables and sedation outcomes in 508 pediatric dental patients sedated by single- and multi-drug sedation regimens (MEP-H; MEP-H-(PO)-MID; MEP-H-(IN)-MID; single-agent MID). The outcome assessment examined sedation visit effectiveness, sedation treatment completion, treatment time and medication administration to discharge time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed predictive variables associated with sedation visit effectiveness. Results: Both three-drug combinations (MEP-H-(PO)-MID; MEP-H-(IN)-MID) were used for behavior guidance in children of a similar age (median age=7.1 and 6.5 years, respectively, for the two drug combinations) and weight (median weight = 23.7 and 23.5 kg, respectively, for the two drug combinations). These three-drug combinations had a higher likelihood of sedation effectiveness over the reference sedation regimen of single-agent midazolam (MEP-H-(PO)-MID adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.65; 95 percent confidence interval [95% CI]=1.09 to 6.45; P=0.032; and MEP-H-(IN)-MID OR=2.08; 95% CI=1.03 to 4.18; P=0.039). MEP-H-(IN)MID was associated with a shorter medication administration to discharge time for patients by 23 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]=9.5 to 34 minutes) compared to MEP-H-(PO) MID (P<0.05) while providing a comparable number of teeth treated (median=five). All sedation drug regimens, including MEP-H-(IN)MID, had high levels of oxygen saturation during all sedation appointments. Conclusion: Substituting IN for PO MID in MEP-H-MID was associated with a shorter total time to discharge while demonstrating comparable efficacy during sedation.

Success and safety of deep sedation as a primary anaesthetic approach for transvenous lead extraction: a retrospective analysis.

There is a rising number in complications associated with more cardiac electrical devices implanted (CIED). Infection and lead dysfunction are reasons to perform transvenous lead extraction. An ideal anaesthetic approach has not been described yet. Most centres use general anaesthesia, but there is a lack in studies looking into deep sedation (DS) as an anaesthetic approach. We report our retrospective experience for a large number of procedures performed with deep sedation as a primary approach. Extraction procedures performed between 2011 and 2018 in our electrophysiology laboratory have been included retrospectively. We began by applying a bolus injection of piritramide followed by midazolam as primary medication and would add etomidate if necessary. For extraction of leads a stepwise approach with careful traction, locking stylets, dilator sheaths, mechanical rotating sheaths and if needed snares and baskets has been used. A total of 780 leads in 463 patients (age 69.9 ± 12.3, 31.3% female) were extracted. Deep sedation was successful in 97.8% of patients. Piritramide was used as the main analgesic medication (98.5%) and midazolam as the main sedative (94.2%). Additional etomidate was administered in 15.1% of cases. In 2.2% of patients a conversion to general anaesthesia was required as adequate level of DS was not achieved before starting the procedure. Sedation related complications occurred in 1.1% (n = 5) of patients without sequalae. Deep sedation with piritramide, midazolam and if needed additional etomidate is a safe and feasible strategy for transvenous lead extraction.

Efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of repeated subcutaneous ketamine injections for treatment-resistant depression (KADS study): randomised double-blind active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials suggest that intravenous racemic ketamine is a highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but phase 3 trials of racemic ketamine are needed. AIMS: To assess the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of subcutaneous racemic ketamine in participants with TRD. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001096448 at www.anzctr.org.au. METHOD: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled multicentre trial was conducted at seven mood disorders centres in Australia and New Zealand. Participants received twice-weekly subcutaneous racemic ketamine or midazolam for 4 weeks. Initially, the trial tested fixed-dose ketamine 0.5 mg/kg versus midazolam 0.025 mg/kg (cohort 1). Dosing was revised, after a Data Safety Monitoring Board recommendation, to flexible-dose ketamine 0.5-0.9 mg/kg or midazolam 0.025-0.045 mg/kg, with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2). The primary outcome was remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression score ≤10) at the end of week 4. RESULTS: The final analysis (those who received at least one treatment) comprised 68 in cohort 1 (fixed-dose), 106 in cohort 2 (flexible-dose). Ketamine was more efficacious than midazolam in cohort 2 (remission rate 19.6% v. 2.0%; OR = 12.1, 95% CI 2.1-69.2, P = 0.005), but not different in cohort 1 (remission rate 6.3% v. 8.8%; OR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.2-8.2, P = 0.76). Ketamine was well tolerated. Acute adverse effects (psychotomimetic, blood pressure increases) resolved within 2 h. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately dosed subcutaneous racemic ketamine was efficacious and safe in treating TRD over a 4-week treatment period. The subcutaneous route is practical and feasible.

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.

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.

A comparation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of dexmedetomidine rather than midazolam may improve ICU outcomes. We summarized the available recent evidence to further verify this conclusion. METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) were used for binary categorical variables, and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated, the effect sizes are expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CI), and trial sequential analysis was performed. RESULTS: 16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled 2035 patients in the study. Dexmedetomidine as opposed to midazolam achieved a shorter length of stay in ICU (MD = -2.25, 95%CI = -2.94, -1.57, p<0.0001), lower risk of delirium (RR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.50, 0.81, p = 0.0002), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -0.83, 95%CI = -1.24, -0.43, p<0.0001). The association between dexmedetomidine and bradycardia was also found to be significant (RR 2.21, 95%CI 1.31, 3.73, p = 0.003). We found no difference in hypotension (RR = 1.44, 95%CI = 0.87, 2.38, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.25, P = 0.87), neither in terms of adverse effects requiring intervention, hospital length of stay, or sedation effects. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with recent evidence, compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium, mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, as well as reduced patient costs. But dexmedetomidine could not reduce mortality and increased the risk of bradycardia.

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.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besilate for sedation in outpatients undergoing impacted third molar extraction: a prospective exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Dental treatments often cause anxiety, fear, and stress in patients. Intravenous sedation is widely used to alleviate these concerns, and various agents are employed for sedation. However, it is important to find safer and more effective sedation agents, considering the adverse effects associated with current agents. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besilate (hereinafter called "remimazolam") and to determine the optimal dosages for sedation in outpatients undergoing dental procedures. METHODS: Thirty-one outpatients aged 18-65 years scheduled for impacted third molar extraction were included in the study. Remimazolam was administered as a single dose of 0.05 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.35 mg/kg/h, with the infusion rate adjusted to maintain a sedation level at a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score of 2-4. The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy, and the secondary endpoints included induction time, recovery time, time until discharge, remimazolam dose, respiratory and circulatory dynamics, and frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: The sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy was 100%. The remimazolam induction dose was 0.08 (0.07-0.09) mg/kg, and the anesthesia induction time was 3.2 (2.6-3.9) min. The mean infusion rate of remimazolam during the procedure was 0.40 (0.38-0.42) mg/kg/h. The time from the end of remimazolam administration to awakening was 8.0 (6.7-9.3) min, and the time from the end of remimazolam administration to discharge was 14.0 (12.5-15.5) min. There were no significant respiratory or circulatory effects requiring intervention during sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous intravenous administration of remimazolam can achieve optimal sedation levels without significantly affecting respiratory or circulatory dynamics. The study also provided guidance on the appropriate dosage of remimazolam for achieving moderate sedation during dental procedures. Additionally, the study findings suggest that electroencephalogram monitoring can be a reliable indicator of the level of sedation during dental procedural sedation with remimazolam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (No. jRCTs061220052) on 30/08/2022.