Trial reportPloS one2025
Remimazolam-etomidate versus remimazolam-propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal sedation strategy for gastrointestinal endoscopy remains debated. This study compared the efficacy and safety of remimazolam combined with etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.
methodsThis single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed from March 2024 to April 2024. A total of 262 patients scheduled to undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive remimazolam-etomidate (RE) or remimazolam-propofol (RP). The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory depression. Secondary outcomes included the results of sedation and recovery. The safety results mainly include the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, painful injection and muscular tremor. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and χ² tests for group comparisons, with subgroup analyses and multivariable logistic regression to assess the robustness of primary outcome.
resultsRespiratory depression occurred in 20.0% (25/125) of RE patients versus 32.3% (40/124) of RP patients (OR=0.52; 95% CI = 0.29-0.93; p = 0.028). There was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of the number of airway interventions between the two groups (p = 0.043), with 18 patients (14.5%) in the RP group requiring three airway interventions and only seven patients (5.6%) in the RE group. Hypoxemia occurred in three patients (2.4%) in the RE group and in five patients (4.0%) in the RP group. Hypotension was observed in 23.2% of patients sedated with RE versus 36.3% of patients sedated with RP (p = 0.024).
conclusionRemimazolam-etomidate demonstrated a superior safety profile, with reduced respiratory depression and hemodynamic instability compared to remimazolam-propofol, suggesting its potential as a safer alternative for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation. REGISTRATION INFORMATION: This trial was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400085904) prior to patient enrollment.
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.