Clinical therapeutics · 2026
Remimazolam Versus Propofol During Hysteroscopy: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis of Nine Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boudjelal Alaa, Altaweel Sarah, Simeen Raniya, Alnaqeeb Turki Yaslam, Al-Ashgar Jamal Bassam, Alotaibi Jood, Hussain Rida Hamid, Alameer Ghadeer, Alazemi Waleed Bader, Baradwan Saeed, Bayazeed Badr Mohammed, Mohamed Ayman Ma, Abu-Zaid Ahmed
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam (RMZ) versus propofol during hysteroscopy.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science until February 2025. We pooled dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes using relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
FINDINGS: Nine RCTs and 1164 patients were included. RMZ was significantly associated with decreased incidence of injection pain (RR = 0.07; with 95% CI, [0.02, 0.20]; P = 0.001), hypotension (RR = 0.33; with 95% CI, [0.22, 0.50]; P = 0.001), and low SpO₂/respiratory depression (RR = 0.26; with 95% CI, [0.18, 0.38]; P = 0.001). However, RMZ was significantly associated with an increased incidence of hiccough (RR = 10.37; with 95% CI, [2.94, 36.62]; P = 0.001), with no significant difference between both groups regarding bradycardia (RR = 0.32; with 95% CI, [0.08, 1.18]; P = 0.09), and body movement (RR = 1.17; with 95% CI, [0.95, 1.44]; P = 0.15). Additionally, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding sedation success (P = 0.83), recovery duration (P = 0.05), and total procedural duration (P = 0.07).
IMPLICATIONS: RMZ may provide a safer alternative to propofol during hysteroscopy, with similar procedural outcomes and fewer injection-related and cardiorespiratory adverse events.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science until February 2025. We pooled dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes using relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
FINDINGS: Nine RCTs and 1164 patients were included. RMZ was significantly associated with decreased incidence of injection pain (RR = 0.07; with 95% CI, [0.02, 0.20]; P = 0.001), hypotension (RR = 0.33; with 95% CI, [0.22, 0.50]; P = 0.001), and low SpO₂/respiratory depression (RR = 0.26; with 95% CI, [0.18, 0.38]; P = 0.001). However, RMZ was significantly associated with an increased incidence of hiccough (RR = 10.37; with 95% CI, [2.94, 36.62]; P = 0.001), with no significant difference between both groups regarding bradycardia (RR = 0.32; with 95% CI, [0.08, 1.18]; P = 0.09), and body movement (RR = 1.17; with 95% CI, [0.95, 1.44]; P = 0.15). Additionally, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding sedation success (P = 0.83), recovery duration (P = 0.05), and total procedural duration (P = 0.07).
IMPLICATIONS: RMZ may provide a safer alternative to propofol during hysteroscopy, with similar procedural outcomes and fewer injection-related and cardiorespiratory adverse events.