SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Perioperative clinical outcomes of remimazolam in regional anesthesia: a systematic review of sedation and safety parameters.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegional anesthesia provides significant perioperative benefits, but patients often require sedation for comfort and immobility. Common sedatives such as propofol or dexmedetomidine can cause hemodynamic instability or prolonged recovery. Remimazolam, a newer ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has a rapid onset and offset with potentially improved safety. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during regional anesthesia.
methodPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched up to July 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam with other sedatives (propofol, dexmedetomidine) or placebo during regional anesthesia, including neuraxial techniques (spinal, epidural, combined spinal-epidural) and peripheral nerve blocks. Key outcomes included onset of sedation, depth/quality of sedation, and recovery characteristics, hemodynamic and respiratory events, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), neurocognitive outcomes, and satisfaction. Data were extracted and qualitatively synthesized.
resultsSix RCTs involving 677 patients were included. Remimazolam consistently provided a rapid onset of sedation (about 4-5 min), faster than dexmedetomidine and comparable to propofol. Recovery was also shorter with remimazolam (approximately 7-11 min) compared with both comparators. It provided greater hemodynamic stability, with fewer episodes of bradycardia than dexmedetomidine and less hypotension than propofol. Respiratory safety was favorable, with no serious adverse events and lower risk in some indices compared with dexmedetomidine. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was low and similar across groups. Remimazolam was not associated with increased delirium or cognitive impairment and in some outcomes showed advantages over propofol. Patient and clinician satisfaction were consistently high.
conclusionRemimazolam appears to be an effective and safe sedative option for regional anesthesia, offering a rapid onset and recovery, stable hemodynamics, and minimal respiratory and neurocognitive side effects. Based on the currently limited evidence, it may represent a favorable alternative to traditional sedatives for maintaining patient comfort during regional anesthesia procedures; however, larger, high-quality trials are warranted.
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.