SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Remimazolam compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam for adult sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemimazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, has emerged as a potential safer alternative for sedation in Flexible Bronchoscopy (FB). This meta-analysis compares its efficacy and safety with Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, and Midazolam in adult patients undergoing FB.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on July 17, 2025, for trials comparing Remimazolam with other sedatives. Primary outcomes included hypotension, bradycardia, and intraprocedural opioid consumption; secondary outcomes were hypoxia, respiratory depression, patient satisfaction, induction time, and recovery time. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR), Mean Differences (MD), and Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) were calculated using a random-effects model in R (4.4.0). Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool, and subgroup analyses were conducted for each comparator.
resultsEleven trials (1,884 patients) were included. Remimazolam reduced respiratory depression (RR = 0.44 [95% CI 0.29; 0.67]; p = 0.0002; I² = 0%), hypoxia incidence (RR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.39; 0.93]; p = 0.0227; I² = 64.7%), bradycardia (RR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.20; 0.77]; p = 0.0069; I² = 52.3%), and hypotension (RR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.40; 0.95]; p = 0.0289; I² = 74.0%) compared to all sedatives. Compared to Propofol, Remimazolam reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.42 [95% CI 0.31; 0.58]; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%), respiratory depression (RR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.25; 0.68]; p = 0.0005; I² = 12.3%), but increased induction time (MD = 0.61 min [95% CI 0.23; 0.99]; p = 0.002; I² = 90.9%). Compared to Dexmedetomidine, it improved satisfaction (SMD = 0.23 [95% CI 0.07; 0.39]; p = 0.004; I² = 0%) and reduced recovery time (MD = -1.79 min [95% CI -2.66; -0.92]; p < 0.001; I² = 90.7%), hypoxia incidence (RR = 0.49 [95% CI 0.28; 0.88]; p = 0.0162; I² = 60.3%), and induction time (MD = -2.21 min [95% CI -2.41; -2.00]; p < 0.001; I² = 0%). Compared to Midazolam, Remimazolam increased sedation success (RR = 2.03 [95% CI 1.40; 2.95]; p = 0.0002; I² = 50%), shortened induction time (MD = -0.69 min [95% CI -1.37; -0.01]; p = 0.047; I² = 81.5%), and recovery time (MD = -4.49 min [95% CI -7.06; -1.92]; p < 0.001; I² = 40.9%).
conclusionsRemimazolam reduced respiratory depression overall and demonstrated improved safety, faster recovery, and greater efficacy compared to Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, and Midazolam, respectively, supporting its potential as an effective alternative for sedation in FB. Nonetheless, substantial heterogeneity in certain outcomes and the relatively small sample size in some comparisons limit the generalizability of our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD 42024568148).
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.