MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306155810 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1005367

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate in bronchoscopy for adults: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, positive-controlled clinical study

2022· article· en· W4306155810 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ying Zhou, Shuting Yang, Kaiming Duan, Zhi-Hong Bai, Yunfei Feng, Zhigang Cheng, Hui Wu, Wangning Shangguan, Xiaomin Wu, Chunhui Wang, Xiaoqing Chai, Guohai Xu, Cunming Liu, Gaofeng Zhao, Chun Chen, Baoan Gao, Lie Li, Min Zhang, Wen Ouyang, Saiying Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanchang UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceAnhui Medical UniversityCentral South UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaXiangya Hospital, Central South UniversityUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughGuangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese MedicineWenzhou Medical University
KeywordsMedicineSedationPropofolBronchoscopyAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the development of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of various pulmonary diseases, the anesthesia/sedation requirements are becoming more demanding, posing great challenges for patient safety while ensuring a smooth examination/surgery process. Remimazolam, a brand-new ultra-short-acting anesthetic, may compensate for the shortcomings of current anesthetic/sedation strategies in bronchoscopy. Methods: This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel positive controlled phase 3 clinical trial. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam besylate or 2 mg/kg propofol during bronchoscopy to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam. Results: A total of 154 subjects were successfully sedated in both the remimazolam group and the propofol group, with a success rate of 99.4% (95%CI of the adjusted difference −6.7 × 10%–6% to −5.1 × 10%–6%). The sedative effect of remimazolam was noninferior to that of propofol based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of −5%. Compared with the propofol group, the time of loss of consciousness in the remimazolam group (median 61 vs. 48s, p < 0.001), the time from the end of study drug administration to complete awakening (median 17.60 vs. 12.80 min, p < 0.001), the time from the end of bronchoscopy to complete awakening (median 11.00 vs. 7.00 min, p < 0.001), the time from the end of study drug administration to removal of monitoring (median 19.50 vs. 14.50 min, p < 0.001), and the time from the end of bronchoscopy to removal of monitoring (median 12.70 vs. 8.60 min, p < 0.001) were slightly longer. The incidence of Adverse Events in the remimazolam group and the propofol group (74.8% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.59) was not statistically significant, and none of them had Serious Adverse Events. The incidence of hypotension (13.5% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.001), hypotension requiring treatment (1.9% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.017), and injection pain (0.6% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group. Conclusion: Moderate sedation with 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam besylate is effective and safe during bronchoscopy. The incidence of hypotension and injection pain was less than with propofol, but the time to loss of consciousness and recovery were slightly longer. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov , ChiCTR2000039753

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207