ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Remimazolam for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a prospective study of effectiveness and patient satisfaction.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key strategies in trauma anesthesia for severe hemorrhage: a narrative review.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Review
- Research Progress on the Clinical Application of Remimazolam Outside the Operating Room: A Review of Pharmacological Characteristics, Clinical Effects, and Safety.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemimazolam (RM) is a novel ultra-short acting benzodiazepine. This study evaluates the safety of using RM for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED) comparing its administration by registered nurse anaesthetists versus house officers in 1st year residency in emergency medicine and emergency medicine physicians without previous anaesthesiologic specialisation. Secondary aims were patient satisfaction and proportion of successful procedures.
methodsThis prospective study was performed at the ED at Aalborg University Hospital from 10 May through 20 August 2024. Five emergency medicine physicians (group 1) started administering RM to patients after completion of training and direct supervision. Results were compared to patients sedated by two registered nurse anaesthetists (group 2) who had been administering RM more than 50 times before study start. Time was recorded during sedation and a questionnaire filled out immediately after the patient had awakened. T-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups. Proportions were calculated with chi-square (χ
resultsIn group 1, 53 patients were sedated by emergency medicine physicians, and in group 2, 50 patients were sedated by registered nurse anaesthetists. No or mild respiratory adverse effects were observed in 97% of patients in group 1 versus 100% in group 2. Procedural amnesia was 93% in group 1 versus 90% in group 2. Patients were safe to be left unsupervised after a median of 15 min in both groups. Procedural success was 92% in group 1 versus 100% in group 2.
conclusionsSevere respiratory adverse effects after sedation were rare in both groups. Most patients had amnesia and adequate pain relief for the procedure. The use of RM by physicians without anaesthesiologic specialisation is considered a safe and effective alternative for procedural sedation in the ED.
trial registrationThe study was registered and approved as a quality study (ID 2017-011259) by the hospital administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.