Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39712634›Full record

Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2024

Comparing Cognitive Recovery of Remimazolam versus Propofol in Elderly Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Shuying Lin, Ying Wei, Yifen Zhuo, Shiqin Que, Xuepeng Jin, Yusheng Yao, Bin Qian

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Hemodynamic safety of remimazolamWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Safety of Remimazolam in Vulnerable Populations.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025
    Review
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

7 authors.

Shuying Lin *Department of Anesthesiology, People's Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ying Wei *Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yifen Zhuo *Department of Anesthesiology, Xiamen Haicang Hospital, Xiamen, People's Republic of China.
Shiqin QueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xuepeng JinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0004-7086-4311
Yusheng YaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-8488-8876
Bin QianDepartment of Anesthesiology, People's Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Remimazolam, a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, shows promise for procedural sedation. This study compared the cognitive recovery of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 228 patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing outpatient colonoscopies were recruited. Patients received intravenous sufentanil 0.05 μg/kg, followed by either remimazolam 0.2 mg/kg or propofol 1 mg/kg for sedation induction. The assigned study drug (remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg or propofol 0.5 mg/kg) was titrated to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale score < 3 during the procedure. The primary outcome was the incidence of cognitive recovery, assessed using the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS) cognitive domain on postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes included overall and other PostopQRS domains recovery, time to discharge, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Results: Cognitive recovery on day 3 was similar between remimazolam (84.2%) and propofol (85.1%) groups (risk ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.11; p = 0.854). No significant differences were observed in overall recovery, other domains, or discharge time. Remimazolam patients reported higher satisfaction (p = 0.001) and experienced lower incidences of hypotension (21.9% vs 53.5%; p < 0.001), hypoxemia (6.1% vs 16.7%; p = 0.024), and injection site pain (15.8% vs 41.2%; p < 0.001) compared to propofol. Conclusion: In elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, remimazolam demonstrated comparable cognitive recovery to propofol, with higher patient satisfaction and a more favorable safety profile. Remimazolam may be the preferred alternative to propofol for procedural sedation in this vulnerable population. Trial Registration: The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200066689.

Indexed as

BenzodiazepinesCognitionColonoscopyHypnotics and SedativesPropofolAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthesia Recovery PeriodDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMalePatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesBenzodiazepinesHypnotics and SedativesPropofolremimazolamcognitive recoverycolonoscopyelderly patientspostoperative quality of recoverypropofolremimazolam

Identifiers

PMID39712634
PMCPMC11661974

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.