Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Remimazolam besylate is a newer benzodiazepine with characteristics of quick onset of effects, short maintenance and recovery times without accumulation in tissues. This trial was conducted to confirm the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate versus propofol during hysteroscopy. Methods Patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam (Group R) or the propofol group (Group P). Group R was administered an induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 1.0 mg/kg/h. In Group P, propofol was started at 1.5–2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0–6.0 mg/kg/h. After remimazolam besylate or propofol induction, remifentanil was infused using a target-controlled infusion system with a target concentration of 1.5 ng/ml and titrated during the procedure. The incidence rates of injection pain, low oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) and adverse effects in both groups were compared. Results Eighty-two patients were included in this study. The incidence of adverse events in Group R (3.7%) was significantly lower than that in Group P (36.6%) ( p  < 0.001). The incidence of injection pain in Group P (80.5%) was much higher than that in Group R (2.4%) ( p  < 0.001). The incidence of other adverse events, such as low SpO 2 , bradycardia, and hypotension in Group R was lower than that in Group P ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Remimazolam besylate proves to be a safer alternative for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Moreover, adverse events caused by propofol, such as low SpO 2 and injection pain, are largely avoided. Trial registration This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Mengcheng County No. 1 People’s Hospital (2020MYL20003) and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (15/09/2020, ChiCTR-2000038252 ). The study protocol followed the CONSORT guidelines. The study protocol was performed in the relevant guidelines.

Dexmedetomidine (Dexdor ® ) is a highly selective α 2 -adrenoceptor agonist. It has sedative, analgesic and opioid-sparing effects and is suitable for short- and longer-term sedation in an intensive care setting. In the randomized, double-blind, multicentre MIDEX and PRODEX trials, longer-term sedation with dexmedetomidine was noninferior to midazolam and propofol in terms of time spent at the target sedation range, as well as being associated with a shorter time to extubation than midazolam or propofol, and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine were also easier to rouse, more co-operative and better able to communicate than patients receiving midazolam or propofol. Dexmedetomidine had beneficial effects on delirium in some randomized, controlled trials (e.g. patients receiving dexmedetomidine were less likely to experience delirium than patients receiving midazolam, propofol or remifentanil and had more delirium- and coma-free days than patients receiving lorazepam). Intravenous dexmedetomidine had an acceptable tolerability profile; hypotension, hypertension and bradycardia were the most commonly reported adverse reactions. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine is an important option for sedation in the intensive care setting.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for deep sedation in critically ill patients. Methods In this single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study, patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring deep sedation were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol intravenously. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score of − 4 or − 5. Sedation depth was monitored using RASS and Narcotrend Index (NI). The primary outcome was the percentage of time within the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes included ventilator-free hours within 7 days, successful extubation, length of ICU stay, and 28-day mortality. Adverse events during the interventional period were also recorded. Results Thirty patients were assigned to each group. The median (IQR) RASS score was − 5.0 (− 5.0, − 4.0), and the median (IQR) NI value was 29.0 (21.0, 37.0) during the intervention period. Target RASS was reached a median of 100% of the sedation time in the two groups. No significant differences were observed in ventilator-free hours within 7 days, successful extubation, length of ICU stay, or 28-day mortality among groups. Hypotension occurred in 16 (53.3%) patients of remimazolam group and 18 (60.0%) patients of propofol group ( p  > 0.05). No patient experienced bradycardia. Conclusions Remimazolam besylate appears to be an effective and safe agent for short-term deep sedation in critically ill patients. Our findings warrant large sample-sized randomized clinical trials.

The optimal sedation strategy for gastrointestinal endoscopy remains debated. This study compared the efficacy and safety of remimazolam combined with etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed from March 2024 to April 2024. A total of 262 patients scheduled to undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive remimazolam-etomidate (RE) or remimazolam-propofol (RP). The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory depression. Secondary outcomes included the results of sedation and recovery. The safety results mainly include the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, painful injection and muscular tremor. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and χ² tests for group comparisons, with subgroup analyses and multivariable logistic regression to assess the robustness of primary outcome. Respiratory depression occurred in 20.0% (25/125) of RE patients versus 32.3% (40/124) of RP patients (OR=0.52; 95% CI = 0.29-0.93; p = 0.028). There was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of the number of airway interventions between the two groups (p = 0.043), with 18 patients (14.5%) in the RP group requiring three airway interventions and only seven patients (5.6%) in the RE group. Hypoxemia occurred in three patients (2.4%) in the RE group and in five patients (4.0%) in the RP group. Hypotension was observed in 23.2% of patients sedated with RE versus 36.3% of patients sedated with RP (p = 0.024). Remimazolam-etomidate demonstrated a superior safety profile, with reduced respiratory depression and hemodynamic instability compared to remimazolam-propofol, suggesting its potential as a safer alternative for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation. This trial was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400085904) prior to patient enrollment.

Purpose To evaluate efficacy and adverse events related to inhaled sevoflurane for long-term sedation compared with standard intravenous (IV) sedation with propofol or midazolam. Methods Randomized controlled trial. Sixty intensive care unit (ICU) patients expected to require more than 24 h sedation were randomly assigned to one of three groups: group S, inhaled sevoflurane; group P, IV propofol; group M, IV midazolam. All patients also received IV remifentanil for goal-directed sedation (Ramsay scale and pain score) until extubation or for a maximum of 96 h. Primary end points were wake-up times and extubation delay from termination of sedative administration. Proportion of time within Ramsay score 3–4, IV morphine consumption at 24 h post extubation, hallucination episodes after end of sedation, adverse events, inorganic fluoride plasma levels, and ambient sevoflurane concentrations were recorded. Results Forty-seven patients were analyzed. Wake-up time and extubation delay were significantly ( P  < 0.01) shorter in group S (18.6 ± 11.8 and 33.6 ± 13.1 min) than in group P (91.3 ± 35.2 and 326.11 ± 360.2 min) or M (260.2 ± 150.2 and 599.6 ± 586.6 min). Proportion of time within desired interval of sedation score was comparable between groups. Morphine consumption during the 24 h following extubation was lower in group S than in groups P and M. Four hallucination episodes were reported in group P, five in group M, and none in group S ( P  = 0.04). No hepatic or renal adverse events were reported. Mean plasma fluoride value was 82 μmol l −1 (range 12–220 μmol l −1 ), and mean ambient sevoflurane concentration was 0.3 ± 0.1 ppm. Conclusions Long-term inhaled sevoflurane sedation seems to be a safe and effective alternative to IV propofol or midazolam. It decreases wake-up and extubation times, and post extubation morphine consumption, and increases awakening quality.

Rationale The intravenous anesthetic propofol is known to induce positive mood effects during routine clinical use, suggesting it might be repurposed as an antidepressant, but also raising concerns about abuse potential. How propofol's acute effects vary by dose and with repeated infusions is unknown. Objectives This exploratory analysis aimed to (1) compare the immediate mood effects of propofol administered at two different doses, (2) describe how those mood effects change with repeated infusions, and (3) evaluate whether acute mood improvement predicts later antidepressant response. Methods Twenty-four adults with moderate-to-severe treatment-resistant depression were randomized into two dosing groups. Six low- or high-dose propofol infusions were administered under blinded conditions over a two-week period. Self-reported mood states were recorded before and after each infusion using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Abuse potential was evaluated with the Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ-5). Results At the first infusion, propofol induced acute improvements in PANAS-X Sadness, Fear, Joviality, and Serenity scales ( p  < 0.002), independent of dose. Over the series of six infusions, acute changes in Sadness, Fear, and Joviality, but not Serenity, diminished with infusion number ( p  < 0.002). The DEQ-5 \"want more\" rating decreased across infusions ( p  = 0.002). Changes in PANAS-X scales with the first infusion did not predict later improvement in depression severity ( p  > 0.05). Conclusion Cumulative changes in mood states observed with repeated infusions suggest that propofol engages adaptive mechanisms in mood circuitry. Subjective responses with repeated infusions do not indicate increasing potential for abuse in this patient population.

Patients with prolonged seizures that do not respond to intravenous benzodiazepines and a second-line anticonvulsant suffer from refractory status epilepticus and those with seizures that do not respond to continuous intravenous anesthetic anticonvulsants suffer from super-refractory status epilepticus. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A strict pharmacological treatment regimen is urgently required, but the level of evidence for the available drugs is very low. Refractory complex focal status epilepticus generally does not require anesthetics, but all intravenous non-anesthetizing anticonvulsants may be used. Most descriptive data are available for levetiracetam, phenytoin and valproate. Refractory generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a life-threatening emergency, and long-term clinical consequences are eminent. Administration of intravenous anesthetics is mandatory, and drugs acting at the inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor such as midazolam, propofol and thiopental/pentobarbital are recommended without preference for one of those. One in five patients with anesthetic treatment does not respond and has super-refractory status epilepticus. With sustained seizure activity, excitatory N -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are increasingly expressed post-synaptically. Ketamine is an antagonist at this receptor and may prove efficient in some patients at later stages. Neurosteroids such as allopregnanolone increase sensitivity at GABA A receptors; a Phase 1/2 trial demonstrated safety and tolerability, but randomized controlled data failed to demonstrate efficacy. Adjunct ketogenic diet may contribute to termination of difficult-to-treat status epilepticus. Randomized controlled trials are needed to increase evidence for treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus, but there are multiple obstacles for realization. Hitherto, prospective multicenter registries for pharmacological treatment may help to improve our knowledge.

Background The stability of hemodynamics during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery is particularly important. Remimazolam is a new type of benzodiazepine drug, with supposed advantages of rapid induction, rapid recovery, stable hemodynamics, and mild respiratory inhibition. Aim To evaluate the effect of remimazolam anesthesia induction on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery. Methods This randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled consecutive patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR)/aortic valve replacement (AVR)/double‐valve replacement (DVR) surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The study was conducted according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either remimazolam or propofol induction of 30 patients each. All patients, data collectors, and data analyzers were blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcomes were the fluctuations in hemodynamic parameters (the difference of maximum or minimum heart rate to baseline, ▲HR, the difference of maximum or minimum mean arterial pressure to baseline, ▲MAP), the occurrence of cardiovascular events (hypotension, severe bradycardia), and the cumulative norepinephrine doses used per patient, averaged per group during induction. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, HR, mean arterial pressure, MAP, bispectral index, BIS, plasma lactic acid, Lac, and blood glucose, Glu values). Results A total of 60 patients with heart valve replacement were included in the final analysis, with 30 patients in each group. The ▲MAP was significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group during induction (p < .05). The incidences of hypotension and the cumulative norepinephrine doses used per patient, averaged per group during induction were significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group (p < .05). Conclusion Remimazolam may be safe and effective for induction and may as an alternative to propofol during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery. Remimazolam may be safe and effective for induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

Propofol has been shown to provide protection against renal ischemia/reperfusion injury experimentally, but clinical evidence is lacking. Here we studied the effect of propofol anesthesia on the occurrence of acute kidney injury following heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. One hundred and twelve patients who underwent valvular heart surgery were randomized to receive either propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia, both with sufentanil. Using Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria, significantly fewer patients developed acute kidney injury postoperatively in the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane group (6 compared with 21 patients). The incidence of severe renal dysfunction was significantly higher in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (5 compared with none). The postoperative cystatin C was significantly lower in the propofol group at 24 and 48h. Serum interleukin-6 at 6h after aorta cross-clamp removal, C-reactive protein at postoperative day 1, and segmented neutrophil counts at postoperative day 3 were also significantly lower in the propofol group. Thus, propofol anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence and severity of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass compared with sevoflurane. This beneficial effect of propofol may be related to its ability to attenuate the perioperative increase in proinflammatory mediators.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of propofol versus midazolam on vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock to better guide sedative selection. This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, IRB-approved, non-inferiority cohort study. Included individuals were ≥ 18 years of age, had a diagnosis of septic shock, and exclusive administration of propofol or midazolam for at least 12 h. The primary outcome was maximum increase in vasopressor requirements within the first 12 h following sedative initiation. For the primary outcome of maximum increase in norepinephrine equivalents (NEE) within 12 h, propofol was non-inferior to midazolam (0.09 vs. 0.129 μg/kg/min, p = 0.002). No difference was seen between the propofol and midazolam groups for the secondary outcome of maximum increase in NEE within 3 h (0.02 vs 0.04 μg/kg/min, p = 0.208), however, the propofol group had a significantly lower increase within 6 h (0.06 vs 0.086 μg/kg/min, p = 0.043) and 24 h (0.11 vs 0.25 μg/kg/min, p = 0.013). In patients with septic shock, vasopressor requirement increases with propofol were non-inferior to midazolam within the first 12 h. •Propofol was non-inferior to midazolam in NEE increases within the first 12 h.•Lower NEE requirements in the propofol group at 6 and 24 h.•Supports guideline recommendations to use propofol over midazolam for sedation.