Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2026
Effect of remimazolam on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Effect of Remimazolam on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Surgical Patients: A Critical Review of Pharmacological Mechanisms and Clinical Evidence.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur study aimed to compare remimazolam, midazolam, and no sedative on postoperative delirium (POD) incidence, cognitive function, inflammation, and recovery in elderly colorectal cancer (CRC) laparoscopic radical resection patients.
methodsIn this single-center, randomized, double-blind trial, 60 patients aged ≥ 60 years were assigned to the Control, Remimazolam, or Midazolam groups (n = 20 each). Anesthesia included remimazolam (6 mg/kg/h for 5 min), midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) before induction, or no sedative. Primary outcome was POD incidence (diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) algorithm. Secondary outcomes included CAM/Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and S-100 protein (S-100) levels, intraoperative metrics, and recovery times. Data were analyzed using chi-square, ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (P < 0.05).
resultsRemimazolam significantly reduced POD incidence (5%) compared to the Control (30%) and Midazolam (40%) groups (P = 0.021). At postoperative day 7, compared to the Midazolam group, the Remimazolam group showed both significantly lower CAM scores (12.00 [11.00-13.00] vs. 13.50 [12.00-20.75]) and higher MMSE scores (29.00 [28.00-29.00] vs. 28.00 [21.25-28.00]) (both P = 0.029). Compared to the Control group, the Remimazolam group had numerically lower CAM scores and higher MMSE scores, but these differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.340 for both comparisons). Serum IL-6 levels in the Remimazolam group were consistently and significantly lower than those in the Midazolam group at all measured postoperative time points (Postoperative 1, 3, and 7; all P < 0.05). Compared to the Control group, the Remimazolam group also exhibited significantly lower IL-6 levels on postoperative 1 and postoperative 3 (both P = 0.005), but this difference was no longer significant by postoperative 7 (P = 1.000). Awakening (8.00 [6.00-10.00] min) and extubation times (2.50 [1.25-4.00] min) were significantly shorter with remimazolam (P < 0.001 and P = 0.019, respectively). No significant differences were observed in intraoperative metrics.
conclusionRemimazolam reduced POD incidence and demonstrated faster postoperative recovery in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic CRC surgery. While remimazolam showed cognitive and anti-inflammatory benefits relative to midazolam, its advantages over the control group were less pronounced. The most consistent clinical advantage was faster postoperative recovery, as evidenced by significantly shorter awakening and extubation times. These findings suggest that remimazolam is a promising alternative, particularly compared with midazolam, warranting further multicenter validation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ChiCTR2000034677; Registration Date: 2020/07/14.
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.