Economic benefits of remimazolam compared to midazolam and propofol for procedural sedation in colonoscopies and bronchoscopies

Pedersen, Mikkel H; Danø, Anne; Englev, Ebbe; Kattenhøj, Lisbeth; Munk, Emma

doi:10.1080/03007995.2023.2196198

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Remimazolam reportedly has a good safety profile and causes no increase in adverse events compared to midazolam. 18 , 19 , 20 In this study, none of the patients in either group required administration of flumazenil, a benzodiazepine antagonist. Furthermore, remimazolam has also been reported to significantly reduce medical costs by shortening the recovery time compared to midazolam.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Furthermore, remimazolam has also been reported to significantly reduce medical costs by shortening the recovery time compared to midazolam. 19 Furthermore, shortening the recovery time reduces the workload of medical staff in the recovery room.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have previously reported on the utility of remimazolam in the REM‐IICT JP01 study, an investigator‐initiated clinical trial examining endoscopic sedation using remimazolam. 16 , 17 Although previous studies have reported the safety and utility of remimazolam, 9 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 they did not compare remimazolam with other drugs, and currently, no research has compared remimazolam with midazolam in colonoscopies performed in Japan. Therefore, this study entailed a subanalysis of the REM‐IICTJP01 study and compared the efficacy and safety of midazolam and remimazolam in colorectal endoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy in Japanese patients: A propensity score matching analysis

Ogura,

Ichijima,

Ikehara

et al. 2024

DEN Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of sedation with midazolam and remimazolam for colorectal endoscopy.MethodsThis single‐center, two‐arm, post‐hoc analysis of the REM‐IICTJP01 study investigated the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation. We enrolled 40 and 208 patients who underwent colonoscopy under remimazolam and midazolam sedation, respectively, during the same period. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the colonoscopy until discharge. The secondary outcomes included the time from the end of the colonoscopy until awakening, dosage, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was employed to eliminate the effect of confounding factors.ResultsThirty‐seven patients in each group were matched. After propensity matching, the time to awakening after colonoscopy was 28.0 (13.0–37.0) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0–0) min in the remimazolam group; moreover, the time till discharge was 40.0 (35.0–46.5) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0–5.0) min in the remimazolam group, both of which were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group (p < 0.01). The number of additional doses was 0 (0–0) and 2 (1–3) in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. The total dose was 2.0 (2.0–3.5) and 6.0 (5.0–7.0) mg in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively.ConclusionsRemimazolam yielded significantly faster times to awakening and discharge safely compared to midazolam.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%