Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for general anesthesia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIb/III trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for general anesthesia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIb/III trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for general anesthesia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIb/III trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for general anesthesia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIb/III trial
2020
Overview
PurposeThis trial was conducted to confirm the non-inferiority of remimazolam versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in surgical patients.MethodsSurgical patients (n = 375) were randomized to remimazolam started at 6 or 12 mg/kg/h by continuous intravenous (IV) infusion until the loss of consciousness (LoC), followed by 1 mg/kg/h to be adjusted as appropriate until the end of surgery or IV propofol administered as a slow bolus of 2.0–2.5 mg/kg until LoC followed by 4–10 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery. Efficacy was measured via the combined primary endpoint of no intraoperative awakening/recall, no need for rescue sedatives, and no body movements. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were monitored for safety.ResultsEfficacy rates were 100% in all treatment groups, and the non-inferiority of remimazolam was demonstrated [95% confidence interval (− 0.0487; 0.0250)]. The time to LoC was longer in the remimazolam 6 (p < 0.0001) and 12 mg/kg/h (p = 0.0149) groups versus propofol. The time to extubation was longer in both remimazolam groups versus the propofol group (p ≤ 0.0001). The incidence of ADRs was similar in the remimazolam groups (39.3% and 42.7%, respectively) compared with the propofol group (61.3%). Decreased blood pressure occurred in 20.0% and 24.0% of patients treated with 6 and 12 mg/kg/h remimazolam, respectively, compared with 49.3% of patients receiving propofol. Injection site pain was reported in 18.7% of propofol patients but not in those receiving remimazolam.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrated that remimazolam was well tolerated and non-inferior to propofol with regard to efficacy as a sedative hypnotics for general anesthesia.Clinical trial registrationThis trial is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center - Clinical Trials Information (JapicCTI). JapicCTI number: 121973
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
