SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Remimazolam-based total intravenous vs. sevoflurane-based balanced general anesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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.
- Commentary: Cubital Tunnel Release Under Local and Regional Anesthesia: A Scoping Review.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemimazolam is a novel intravenous anesthetic increasingly used as an alternative to traditional inhalational agents like sevoflurane. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared perioperative outcomes of remimazolam versus sevoflurane in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science through May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the two agents. Primary outcomes included intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), incidence of hypotension, use of vasopressors, postoperative delirium (POD), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and antiemetic use. Secondary outcomes included recovery efficiency metrics. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using a random-effects model.
resultsFourteen studies with 1,593 patients (nine RCTs, five observational studies) were included. Remimazolam maintained higher MAP intraoperatively (e.g., 30 min after incision: MD = 7.91 mmHg; 95% CI [4.99, 10.83]; P < 0.0001; I² = 43.8%) and higher HR (e.g., 1 h after incision: MD = 6.23 bpm; 95% CI [3.21, 9.25]; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%) except in the PACU. Vasopressor use was lower with remimazolam (RR = 0.38; 95% CI [0.15, 0.99]; P = 0.0485; I² = 89.7%), while IOH incidence was similar. Remimazolam significantly reduced PONV (RR = 0.61; 95% CI [0.42, 0.89]; P = 0.0101; I² = 18.6%) without increasing POD (RR = 1.08; 95% CI [0.73, 1.59]; P = 0.7048; I² = 0%). Eye-opening time was shorter (MD = − 121.87 s; 95% CI [–164.20, − 79.55]; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%), while anesthesia, operation, and extubation times were comparable. RCT-only analyses confirmed most findings with reduced heterogeneity.
conclusionRemimazolam-based anesthesia was associated with modestly more stable hemodynamics and reduced PONV without clear differences in recovery or POD. Larger, well-designed multicenter randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings in broader populations. REGISTRATION: Our protocol has been registered with PROSPERO under the following registration number: CRD42024523733.
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.