Cargando…
The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies
INTRODUCTION: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Makerere Medical School
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36407397 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.44 |
_version_ | 1784828524412010496 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Lin Li, Chun Zhao, Chuncheng You, Yulai Xu, Jian |
author_facet | Zhang, Lin Li, Chun Zhao, Chuncheng You, Yulai Xu, Jian |
author_sort | Zhang, Lin |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9652671 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Makerere Medical School |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96526712022-11-18 The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies Zhang, Lin Li, Chun Zhao, Chuncheng You, Yulai Xu, Jian Afr Health Sci Articles INTRODUCTION: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam. Makerere Medical School 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9652671/ /pubmed/36407397 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.44 Text en © 2022 Zhang L et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee African Health Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Articles Zhang, Lin Li, Chun Zhao, Chuncheng You, Yulai Xu, Jian The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title | The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title_full | The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title_fullStr | The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title_full_unstemmed | The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title_short | The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
title_sort | comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36407397 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v22i2.44 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhanglin thecomparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT lichun thecomparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT zhaochuncheng thecomparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT youyulai thecomparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT xujian thecomparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT zhanglin comparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT lichun comparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT zhaochuncheng comparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT youyulai comparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies AT xujian comparisonofremimazolamandmidazolamforthesedationofgastrointestinalendoscopyametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledstudies |