ScholarWorks@중앙대학교

초록

Dexmedetomidine is a widely used sedative agent, owing to its stable hemodynamic profiles and minimal respiratory depression. Recently, remimazolam was approved for procedural seda tion. Its pharmacokinetic properties may provide more controllable sedation with fewer adverse effects. This systematic review aims to evaluate the relative efficacy of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine during procedural sedation. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing remim azolam with dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation. Of 515 studies identified, nine met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Compared to dexmedetomidine, remi mazolam was associated with a significant shorter induction time (mean difference [MD] -3.78 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.88 to -1.68; p=0.0004; I2=98%) and a reduced recovery time (MD -3.89 min; 95% CI -5.67 to -2.11; p<0.0001; I2=95%). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the use of rescue medications or in the incidence of respi ratory depression. The incidence of hypertension and bradycardia was significantly lower in the remimazolam group. In conclusion, remimazolam may be associated with shorter induction and recovery times for procedural sedation than those of dexmedetomidine, with lower risks of hy pertension and bradycardia. However, given the limitations identified in the quality assessment, further well-designed, large-scale studies are necessary to validate the clinical significance of these results.

키워드