Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39376062›Full record

Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2024

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.

Kyuho Lee, Seung Ho Choi, Sangil Kim, Hae Dong Kim, Hyejin Oh, Seung Hyun Kim

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kyuho LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Ho ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sangil KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hae Dong KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyejin OhDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, MINT Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Hyun KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Hana Pharm Co., Ltd
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) is crucial for maternal safety during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. While midazolam is known to prevent IONV, we hypothesized that remimazolam would be superior due to its minimal hemodynamic effects. We compared the effects of the two drugs on IONV.

methodsParturients scheduled for cesarean section were randomly assigned to receive either midazolam or remimazolam. They received midazolam 2 mg or remimazolam 5 mg, with additional doses administered upon request. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of newly developed IONV during sedation. Other outcomes included overall IONV, rescue antiemetic use, shivering, hemodynamic variables, sedation scale scores, and satisfaction scores.

resultsData from 80 participants were analyzed. Deeper sedation was induced in the remimazolam group (PGroup × Time < 0.001) despite comparable hemodynamic trends between the groups. The incidence of overall IONV was comparable between the two groups (27.5% in the midazolam group vs. 17.5% in the remimazolam group, absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 0.100, 95% CI [-0.082, 0.282], P = 0.284); however, newly developed IONV during sedation was significantly reduced in the remimazolam group (20.0% vs. 5.0%, ARR: 0.150, 95% CI [0.009, 0.291], P = 0.043). The need for rescue antiemetics was also lower in the remimazolam group (15.0% vs. 2.5%, ARR: 0.125, 95% CI [0.004, 0.246], P = 0.048).

conclusionRemimazolam significantly reduced the incidence and severity of newly developed IONV compared with midazolam, with minimal impact on hemodynamics, making it a useful sedative option for cesarean section.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, SpinalCesarean SectionHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamAdultAnesthesia, ObstetricalAntiemeticsBenzodiazepinesFemaleHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsNauseaPregnancyAntiemeticsBenzodiazepinesHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamremimazolamCesarean sectionConscious sedationMidazolamNauseaRemimazolamSpinal anesthesia.

Identifiers

PMID39376062
PMCPMC11637588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.