ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Remimazolam versus propofol for postoperative ICU sedation in mechanically ventilated cancer patients: a noninferiority randomized clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, remimazolam, versus propofol for short-term sedation in postoperative cancer patients during mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Methods: This single-center, randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted from February 1st to 31 August 2024. Adult postoperative cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the ICU were randomized to receive either remimazolam or propofol. The primary outcomes were the time to achieve target sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, RASS, -2 to 0) and the percentage of time within the target range without rescue sedation. Results: A total of 80 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the remimazolam group (n = 40) or the propofol group (n = 40). The time to achieve target sedation was comparable between the remimazolam and propofol groups [median 3.0 (IQR 2.0-4.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 2.0-4.5) minutes, P = 0.590]. The median percentage of time within the target sedation range was also similar (80.0% vs. 73.2%, P = 0.546). However, remimazolam demonstrated a superior safety profile, with significantly lower incidences of hypotension (15.0% vs. 42.5%, P = 0.007) and respiratory depression (5.0% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.043). No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, mortality, or costs. Conclusion: In mechanically ventilated, postoperative cancer patients, remimazolam provides non-inferior sedation efficacy compared to propofol, but with a significantly more favorable safety profile, particularly regarding hemodynamic and respiratory stability. These findings position Remimazolam as a promising and safer alternative for sedation in this vulnerable population.
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.