MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392244741 · doi:10.14740/cr1595

Preliminary Experience With Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation and as an Adjunct to General Anesthesia During Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Procedures

2024· article· en· W4392244741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Holly Gillis, Christopher McKee, Kristin Chenault, Marco Corridore, Joseph D. Tobias

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNationwide Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineSedationAnesthesiaMidazolamDexmedetomidineBolus (digestion)Cardiac catheterizationFlumazenilDosingContext (archaeology)Adverse effectFentanylBenzodiazepineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Remimazolam is a benzodiazepine which, like midazolam, has sedative, anxiolytic, and amnestic properties. Ester metabolism results in a half-life of 5 - 10 min, a limited context sensitive half-life, and rapid recovery when the infusion is discontinued. Methods: Following the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received remimazolam in the cardiac catheterization, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electrophysiology suites. The primary objective was to assess efficacy and safety. The secondary objective was to describe bolus and infusion dosing of remimazolam and the need for adjunctive agents to optimize procedural sedation conditions. Results: The study cohort included 26 patients with a median age of 18 years and a total of 33 anesthetic encounters. The most common procedures were endomyocardial biopsy or isolated hemodynamic assessment (right or left heart catheterization). Remimazolam was the primary agent for sedation in 82% of the procedures. The majority of cases (25 encounters, 76%) included a bolus dose of remimazolam prior to the start of an infusion. For those patients who received a starting bolus dose, dosing typically ranged between 30 and 110 µg/kg. Continuous infusion rates of remimazolam varied from 5 to 20 µg/kg/min. No adverse hemodynamic or respiratory effects were noted. Midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine were the most frequently used adjunctive agents. One patient required transition to general anesthesia due to the need for a surgical intervention based on the findings of the cardiac catheterization. All other patients were effectively sedated. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience demonstrates that remimazolam effectively provided sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. Future studies are needed to further define dosing parameters for both bolus dosing and continuous infusion as well as to compare remimazolam to other commonly used for procedural sedation in patients with congenital and acquired heart disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207