Cargando…

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate-remifentanil (RT-RF) vs dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (Dex-RF) for outpatients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB). Patients and methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, prospective study involving a tot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Xingfang, Xin, Deqian, Xu, Guangjun, Zhao, Jing, Lv, Qing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9201326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35721180
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.902065
_version_ 1784728286932238336
author Chen, Xingfang
Xin, Deqian
Xu, Guangjun
Zhao, Jing
Lv, Qing
author_facet Chen, Xingfang
Xin, Deqian
Xu, Guangjun
Zhao, Jing
Lv, Qing
author_sort Chen, Xingfang
collection PubMed
description Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate-remifentanil (RT-RF) vs dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (Dex-RF) for outpatients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB). Patients and methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, prospective study involving a total of 146 outpatients undergoing FB divided into two groups. The RT-RF (RR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 12 mg/kg/h of RT for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 1–2 mg/kg/h, while the Dex-RF (DR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 0.5 μg/kg of Dex for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h. All outpatients also received 0.05–0.2 μg/kg/min RF to maintain the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale <3. The primary outcome was rate of successful FB completed. Secondary outcomes were time metrics, hemodynamics, intubating conditions, oxygen saturation, coughing severity, number of remedies, total dose of fentanyl, RF, RT, and Dex, incidence of dreaming, patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events. Results: The FB successful completion rate was 94.52% (95% CI: 89.20–99.90) in the RR group and 91.78% (95% CI: 85.30–98.20) in the DR group. Compared with patients in the DR group, the onset time, time to fully alert, and hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the RR group (p < 0.01), and hemodynamics were more stable in the RR group. Intubating conditions, clinically acceptable intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, coughing severity, consumption of fentanyl and RF, number of remedies, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction were similar between the groups (p > 0.05), as were demographic characteristics, incidence of dreaming, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events (p > 0.05). Conclusion: RT-RF has non-inferior efficacy, better time metrics and hemodynamic stability for outpatients undergoing FB than Dex-RF. Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=66673], identifier [ChiCTR2000041524].
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9201326
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92013262022-06-17 The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial Chen, Xingfang Xin, Deqian Xu, Guangjun Zhao, Jing Lv, Qing Front Pharmacol Pharmacology Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate-remifentanil (RT-RF) vs dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (Dex-RF) for outpatients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB). Patients and methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, prospective study involving a total of 146 outpatients undergoing FB divided into two groups. The RT-RF (RR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 12 mg/kg/h of RT for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 1–2 mg/kg/h, while the Dex-RF (DR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 0.5 μg/kg of Dex for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h. All outpatients also received 0.05–0.2 μg/kg/min RF to maintain the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale <3. The primary outcome was rate of successful FB completed. Secondary outcomes were time metrics, hemodynamics, intubating conditions, oxygen saturation, coughing severity, number of remedies, total dose of fentanyl, RF, RT, and Dex, incidence of dreaming, patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events. Results: The FB successful completion rate was 94.52% (95% CI: 89.20–99.90) in the RR group and 91.78% (95% CI: 85.30–98.20) in the DR group. Compared with patients in the DR group, the onset time, time to fully alert, and hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the RR group (p < 0.01), and hemodynamics were more stable in the RR group. Intubating conditions, clinically acceptable intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, coughing severity, consumption of fentanyl and RF, number of remedies, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction were similar between the groups (p > 0.05), as were demographic characteristics, incidence of dreaming, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events (p > 0.05). Conclusion: RT-RF has non-inferior efficacy, better time metrics and hemodynamic stability for outpatients undergoing FB than Dex-RF. Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=66673], identifier [ChiCTR2000041524]. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9201326/ /pubmed/35721180 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.902065 Text en Copyright © 2022 Chen, Xin, Xu, Zhao and Lv. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pharmacology
Chen, Xingfang
Xin, Deqian
Xu, Guangjun
Zhao, Jing
Lv, Qing
The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title_full The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title_fullStr The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title_full_unstemmed The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title_short The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial
title_sort efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus dexmedetomidine in outpatients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, randomized, blind, non-inferiority trial
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9201326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35721180
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.902065
work_keys_str_mv AT chenxingfang theefficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT xindeqian theefficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT xuguangjun theefficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT zhaojing theefficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT lvqing theefficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT chenxingfang efficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT xindeqian efficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT xuguangjun efficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT zhaojing efficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial
AT lvqing efficacyandsafetyofremimazolamtosilateversusdexmedetomidineinoutpatientsundergoingflexiblebronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedblindnoninferioritytrial