ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of remimazolam
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- ED50 and ED95 of Remimazolam Combined with Sufentanil for Sedation During Ultrasound-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids: A Prospective Dose-Finding Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Adequate sedation with preserved spontaneous breathing and stable hemodynamics is critical for the success and safety of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). Remimazolam, a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine with rapid metabolism and favorable sedative profiles, has shown promising sedative effects for procedural sedation. However, comparative data on its application in FOB with preserved spontaneous breathing remain limited. This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol for sedation in patients undergoing FOB with preserved spontaneous breathing. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from October 2024 to October 2025. All patients undergoing FOB with preserved spontaneous breathing were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups based on the sedative used: remimazolam (Group R) and propofol (Group P). The primary outcome was the sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters, incidence of adverse events, anesthesia-related times, satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients. Results: Thirty-six patients in group R and Forty in group P were collected in this retrospective study. Sedation success rate was 100% in both groups. Oxygen saturation (SpO Conclusion: Our study uncovered remimazolam demonstrates a comparable success rate to propofol and exhibits favorable safety profiles, including reduced hypoxemia, injection pain, and hypotension during FOB with preserved spontaneous breathing. However, the shorter recovery time in Group R was confounded by the routine use of flumazenil, and the findings are limited by the retrospective design, small sample size and exclusive enrollment of ASA I-II patients, requiring validation in larger, prospective studies.
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.