TY - JOUR
T1 - Remimazolam Versus Propofol in General Anesthesia of Complex Surgery in Critical and Non-Critical Patients
T2 - Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
AU - Muñoz-Carrillo, José Luis
AU - Rodríguez-Cortes, Natalie
AU - Lévano, Sandra Trujillo
AU - Moran-Mariños, Cristian
AU - Barboza, Joshuan J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors.
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with propofol in general anesthesia in adult patients. Methods: A systematic search in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was performed. Patients undergoing complex surgery who were critically ill or non-critically ill were included. The risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was applied. Random-effects models using the inverse variance method were applied for all meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials were included (patients taking remimazolam, n = 678; propofol, n = 454). Remimazolam compared to propofol is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76, I2 = 63%, n = 9, CoE moderate certainty), incidence of respiratory depression (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0. 82, I2 = 0%, n = 3; CoE moderate certainty), injection site pain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94, I2 = 21%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty), and may produce little or no difference in bradycardia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients undergoing complex surgery who are critically ill or non-critically ill, remimazolam, compared with propofol, is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension, incidence of respiratory depression, and injection site pain, but little or no difference in bradycardia is possible.
AB - Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with propofol in general anesthesia in adult patients. Methods: A systematic search in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was performed. Patients undergoing complex surgery who were critically ill or non-critically ill were included. The risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was applied. Random-effects models using the inverse variance method were applied for all meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials were included (patients taking remimazolam, n = 678; propofol, n = 454). Remimazolam compared to propofol is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76, I2 = 63%, n = 9, CoE moderate certainty), incidence of respiratory depression (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0. 82, I2 = 0%, n = 3; CoE moderate certainty), injection site pain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94, I2 = 21%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty), and may produce little or no difference in bradycardia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, n = 4; CoE moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients undergoing complex surgery who are critically ill or non-critically ill, remimazolam, compared with propofol, is likely to produce a large decrease in intraoperative hypotension, incidence of respiratory depression, and injection site pain, but little or no difference in bradycardia is possible.
KW - general anesthesia
KW - meta-analysis
KW - propofol
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - remimazolam
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85213289382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm13247791
DO - 10.3390/jcm13247791
M3 - Artículo de revisión
AN - SCOPUS:85213289382
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 13
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 24
M1 - 7791
ER -