Comparative Analysis of the Hemodynamic Effects of Remimazolam and Propofol During General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Hypotension is common during anesthesia induction. However, minimal hemodynamic effects of remimazolam anesthesia have been reported. We hypothesized that remimazolam would have weaker hemodynamic effects than would propofol. To test this, we simultaneously evaluated the hemodynamics using the estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) system and heart rate variability (HRV) during anesthesia induction. Methods: This was a single-center, observational, retrospective study of patients undergoing dental surgery under general anesthesia between 2020 and 2022. Seventy patients were divided into two groups: remimazolam (R group; n=34) and propofol (P group; n=36). The information obtained from the anesthesia records, patient information, esCCO system parameters, and HRV were integrated and analyzed. The percentages of various parameters were set to 100% for the pre-induction phase as the baseline. Results: The %MAP (noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure) decreased over a narrower range in the R compared to the P group (-17.8% (-26.3%, -11.9%) vs. -22.6% (-32.9%, -17.0%); P=0.039). The %HR (heart rate) increased significantly in the R group and decreased in the P group (+10.7% (+6.5%, +18.6%) vs. -6.5% (-14.5%, +8.4%); P<0.01). The %SVesCCO (stroke volume calculated using the esCCO system) decreased significantly in both groups, but the R group showed a smaller difference compared to the P group (- 5.1% (-7.7%, -2.1%) vs. -10.0% (-13.8%, -5.6%); P<0.01). The rates of change in %LF nu (normalized unit of low frequency) and %HF nu (normalized unit of high frequency) were lower for the R than for the P group, although the difference was not significant (+6.8% (-14.5%, 32.4%) vs. +9.2% (-7.2%, +59.7%), P=0.30; +7.9% (-51.0%, +66.9%) vs. +22.8% (-26.1%, +61.6%), P=0.57). Conclusion: Remimazolam demonstrated a lower MAP reduction rate than propofol. A compensatory increase in HR occurred with a decrease in stroke volume. However, the HR increase was not attributable to the autonomic nervous system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".