Cargando…
Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting intravenous benzodiazepine sedative–hypnotic that significantly reduces the times to sedation onset and recovery. This trial was conducted to confirm the recovery time from anesthesia of remimazolam-flumazenil versus propofol in patients undergoin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36615057 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010257 |
_version_ | 1784865652582907904 |
---|---|
author | Pan, Yafei Chen, Mo Gu, Fulei Chen, Jinyan Zhang, Wen Huang, Zhangxiang Zhu, Dapeng Song, Jia Fang, Jun Yu, Weifeng Xie, Kangjie |
author_facet | Pan, Yafei Chen, Mo Gu, Fulei Chen, Jinyan Zhang, Wen Huang, Zhangxiang Zhu, Dapeng Song, Jia Fang, Jun Yu, Weifeng Xie, Kangjie |
author_sort | Pan, Yafei |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting intravenous benzodiazepine sedative–hypnotic that significantly reduces the times to sedation onset and recovery. This trial was conducted to confirm the recovery time from anesthesia of remimazolam-flumazenil versus propofol in patients undergoing endotracheal surgery under rigid bronchoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing endotracheal tumor resection or stent implantation were randomly allocated into a remimazolam group (Group R) or a propofol group (Group P). The primary outcome was the recovery time from general anesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the time to loss of consciousness (LoC), hemodynamic fluctuations, and adverse events. Results: A total of 34 patients were screened, and 30 patients were enrolled in the study. The recovery time was significantly shorter for Group R (140 ± 52 s) than for Group P (374 ± 195 s) (p < 0.001). The times to LoC were 76 ± 40 s in Group R and 75 ± 25 s in Group P and were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in hemodynamic fluctuations or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: The recovery time from general anesthesia in rigid bronchoscopy patients was shorter using remimazolam-flumazenil than with propofol, with no dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations and adverse events or differences between the agents. Remimazolam-flumazenil allows for faster recovery from anesthesia than propofol. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9821250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98212502023-01-07 Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Pan, Yafei Chen, Mo Gu, Fulei Chen, Jinyan Zhang, Wen Huang, Zhangxiang Zhu, Dapeng Song, Jia Fang, Jun Yu, Weifeng Xie, Kangjie J Clin Med Article Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-acting intravenous benzodiazepine sedative–hypnotic that significantly reduces the times to sedation onset and recovery. This trial was conducted to confirm the recovery time from anesthesia of remimazolam-flumazenil versus propofol in patients undergoing endotracheal surgery under rigid bronchoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing endotracheal tumor resection or stent implantation were randomly allocated into a remimazolam group (Group R) or a propofol group (Group P). The primary outcome was the recovery time from general anesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the time to loss of consciousness (LoC), hemodynamic fluctuations, and adverse events. Results: A total of 34 patients were screened, and 30 patients were enrolled in the study. The recovery time was significantly shorter for Group R (140 ± 52 s) than for Group P (374 ± 195 s) (p < 0.001). The times to LoC were 76 ± 40 s in Group R and 75 ± 25 s in Group P and were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in hemodynamic fluctuations or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: The recovery time from general anesthesia in rigid bronchoscopy patients was shorter using remimazolam-flumazenil than with propofol, with no dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations and adverse events or differences between the agents. Remimazolam-flumazenil allows for faster recovery from anesthesia than propofol. MDPI 2022-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9821250/ /pubmed/36615057 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010257 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Pan, Yafei Chen, Mo Gu, Fulei Chen, Jinyan Zhang, Wen Huang, Zhangxiang Zhu, Dapeng Song, Jia Fang, Jun Yu, Weifeng Xie, Kangjie Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title | Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full | Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_short | Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Rigid Bronchoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_sort | comparison of remimazolam-flumazenil versus propofol for rigid bronchoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36615057 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010257 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT panyafei comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT chenmo comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT gufulei comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT chenjinyan comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhangwen comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT huangzhangxiang comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhudapeng comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT songjia comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT fangjun comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT yuweifeng comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT xiekangjie comparisonofremimazolamflumazenilversuspropofolforrigidbronchoscopyaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial |