Skip to main content

CLINICAL TRIAL article

Front. Med.
Sec. Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1434767

The efficacy and safety of remimazolam in painless colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial

Provisionally accepted
Haobing Shi Haobing Shi 1Jinyuan Zhang Jinyuan Zhang 1*Zhiqiang Hu Zhiqiang Hu 2*Qianhao Hou Qianhao Hou 1*Qianhua Hu Qianhua Hu 3*Zhiguang Dai Zhiguang Dai 3*Wenjuan Zhou Wenjuan Zhou 3*Dingwu Qi Dingwu Qi 3*Yuling Li Yuling Li 3*Qing Wang Qing Wang 1*Xiangrui Wang Xiangrui Wang 1*Lijun Liao Lijun Liao 1*Shuwen Qian Shuwen Qian 4*
  • 1 Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China
  • 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China
  • 3 Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, Jiangxi Province, China
  • 4 Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Yangpu, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Remimazolam is a new type of ultra-short-effect intravenous anesthetic, that may provide adequate sedation for endoscopy while causing less cardiovascular or respiratory disturbance than propofol. The aim of this clinical study was to compare the efficacy and safety of two different doses of remimazolam with propofol for sedation during colonoscopy. Patients and Methods: 225 subjects, aged 18 to 80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiology physical status I-III, were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. All the subjects were randomly assigned to three groups, Low-Rem group (low dose remimazolam, 0.15mg/kg, iv., n=75), High-Rem group (high dose remimazolam, 0.2mg/kg, iv, n=75), and Propofol group (propofol 2 mg/kg, iv., n=75). Every individual in this trial was given nalbuphine hydrochloride (0.2mg/kg, iv) before administration of remimazolam or propofol. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Haemodynamic parameters and adverse events were recorded to evaluate safety. Satisfaction of sedation from patients, anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists were also recorded.The success rate of colonoscopy procedure was 100% in both High-Rem and Propofol groups, but it was 89% in Low-Rem group (P<0.05). Furthermore, the induction time of anesthesia was shorter in Propofol group, when compared to the Low-Rem group and the High-Rem group (P<0.05). The recovery time in Low-Rem group, High-Rem group, and Propofol group was 2.33, 2.43, and 3.21 min (p<0.05) respectively, and the time of discharge was 25.00, 25.01, and 27.56 min (p<0.05) respectively. Simultaneously, the incidence of adverse events such as hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression in the remimazolam groups were significantly lower than that in the propofol group. No significant differences were observed among the three groups in Ramsay scale, BPS-NI scale, and Limb movement classification. Moreover, patients, anesthesiologists, and gastroenterologists were all satisfied with the sedation process. Conclusion: Remimazolam can be used safely and effectively for colonoscopy. 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam and propofol have the same sedation success rate and more stable hemodynamics and fewer side effects than propofol.

    Keywords: Colonoscopy, Remimazolam, Propofol, Anesthesia, sedation

    Received: 31 May 2024; Accepted: 05 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Shi, Zhang, Hu, Hou, Hu, Dai, Zhou, Qi, Li, Wang, Wang, Liao and Qian. 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) or licensor 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.

    * Correspondence:
    Jinyuan Zhang, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Zhiqiang Hu, Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Qianhao Hou, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Qianhua Hu, Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, 343000, Jiangxi Province, China
    Zhiguang Dai, Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, 343000, Jiangxi Province, China
    Wenjuan Zhou, Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, 343000, Jiangxi Province, China
    Dingwu Qi, Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, 343000, Jiangxi Province, China
    Yuling Li, Ji'an Central People's Hospital, Ji'an, 343000, Jiangxi Province, China
    Qing Wang, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Xiangrui Wang, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Lijun Liao, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, Shanghai Municipality, China
    Shuwen Qian, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Yangpu, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.