ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2026
Association Between American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System and Remimazolam Sedation Outcomes.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 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.
- Association Between American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System and Remimazolam Sedation Outcomes.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemimazolam (RM) is an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine with pharmacodynamic properties ideal for procedural sedation in emergency departments (EDs). This study evaluated the safety of RM when used for procedural sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients in the ED.
aimsTo compare the occurrence of no or mild/moderate respiratory complications during procedural sedation in patients with ASA scores I, II, and III. Secondarily, to compare clinical characteristics of RM sedations between the ASA groups.
methodsThis qualitative improvement study was conducted in 2024 and 2025 at a Danish Level 1 trauma center. RM was administered to ASA I-III patients ≥ 12 years of age as procedural sedation by emergency medicine physicians or nurses educated in airway management, RM sedation, and adverse events. Safety was measured by the occurrence of respiratory problems graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe.
resultsOf the 540 patients sedated with RM, 95%-100% in ASA I-III had no or mild/moderate respiratory complications, with ASA I and III being the safest groups (p < 0.014). ASA III patients had the most potential airway risks, but still experienced fewer severe respiratory complications than ASA II patients (4.7% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.014). The RM dose was found to be age-, gender- and ASA score-dependent.
conclusionsRM showed great potential for procedural sedation and was safe for procedural sedation of ASA I-III patients in the ED, with few serious respiratory complications, even in high doses and with high-risk profiles.
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.