Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pooled result · Sedation success rateResult — go to the resultRR for sedation success 0.991 95% CI 0.984–0.998Authors' conclusion
Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy
- Participants
- 4,516 adults · 15 trials
- Comparison
- Remimazolam vs propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid
- Outcome
- Sedation success rate
Methodological detailssensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses by opioid type and age range, meta-regression by mean patient age
- Sensitivity analyses
- Subgroup analyses by opioid type and age range
- Meta-regression by mean patient age
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
RR for sedation success
0.991
95% CI 0.984–0.998
Remimazolam vs Propofol
RR for sedation success 0.991 (95% CI 0.984–0.998)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (s) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Induction timeSlightly longer with remimazolam; moderate-quality evidence | 9 (4–13) | |
| −1001020Difference, s (linear scale) |
Other time-related outcomes
- No significant difference between the sedatives
Patient satisfaction
- No difference between both drugs
- MD 0.41 (−0.07 to 0.89) (95% CI)
- Moderate-quality evidence
Endoscopist satisfaction
- No difference between both drugs
- MD −0.31 (−0.65 to 0.04) (95% CI)
- High-quality evidence
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Respiratory depressionHigh-quality evidence | 0.41 (0.30–0.56) | |
| HypotensionModerate-quality evidence | 0.43 (0.35–0.51) | |
| Hypotension requiring treatmentHigh-quality evidence | 0.25 (0.12–0.52) | |
| BradycardiaHigh-quality evidence | 0.42 (0.30–0.58) | |
| 0.10.31310Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. Published 4 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →