Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 April;88(4) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 April;88(4):223-9



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



Minerva Anestesiologica 2022 April;88(4):223-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15917-6


lingua: Inglese

Gastroscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and sufentanil with or without remimazolam

Xingpeng XIAO 1, Nengke XIAO 2, Fenghua ZENG 3, Hexiang CHEN 1, Lei ZHANG 1, Xuan HE 1

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; 2 Muse College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China; 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Renmin Hospital of Qinghai Province, Xining, China

BACKGROUND: Propofol-sufentanil is often used in clinical anesthesia for patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy, but there are still adverse events such as longer recovery time, respiratory depression and higher doses of propofol etc. This study was to evaluate the sedative effect of remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil in sedative gastroscopy.
METHODS: Patients who were going to have gastroscopy examination were randomly divided into two groups: group RM (remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil group) and group PR (propofol-sufentanil group). Patients of each group were anesthetized according to the corresponding anesthesia procedure, and all observation indices were recorded.
RESULTS: In the RM group, there were only small and unsignificant changes in the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 after anesthesia (P>0.05), while the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 in the PR group at each time point after anesthesia were significantly lower than those at T0, and the values of SBP and RR at T2, T3 and T4 were also significantly lower than those at T1 (P<0.05). The dosage of propofol (38±9 mg) in the RM group was significantly less than that (115±15 mg) in the PR group, meanwhile the anesthesia time (8.4±1.6 min), awakening time (2.9±0.8 min), discharge time (6.7±3.1 min) of the RM group were also significantly shorter than those of the PR group (14.5±3.3, 8.7±1.9, 12.4±3.6 min) (P<0.05), but there was no statistical significance between the two groups in other indices (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme has more advantages than propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme.

KEY WORDS: Gastroscopy; Conscious sedation; Remimazolam; Propofol; Sufentanil

inizio pagina