Trial reportCurrent medical science2025
Remimazolam-Remifentanil versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Spontaneous Ventilation During Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Current medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Anesthesia Management in Liver Cancer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Article
- Tracheal Stent Placement Under Remimazolam Sedation With Preserved Spontaneous Respiration: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOptimizing sedation to minimize respiratory depression during fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) presents an ongoing challenge. This trial compared the safety and efficacy of remimazolam-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for maintaining spontaneous ventilation in patients undergoing FOB.
methodsThis pre-registered randomized controlled trial enrolled 103 consecutive candidates for FOB (April 2023 to April 2024). After excluding 10 ineligible participants, 93 were enrolled in a two-phase study. In the initial dose-determination phase, 21 participants underwent dose escalation to establish the induction dose of remimazolam (0.35 mg/kg) using the modified Dixon's method. Subsequently, 72 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to remimazolam-remifentanil group (Group R-R) or propofol-remifentanil group (Group P-R) (n = 36 each). Remifentanil was administered by target-controlled infusion (3.0 ng/mL plasma concentration) in both groups. Group R-R received remimazolam 0.35 mg/kg, while Group P-R received propofol 2.0 mg/kg after remifentanil loading. Standardized supplemental doses were administered for inadequate sedation (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score >1 or Bispectral index >75). The primary endpoint was the incidence of respiratory depression, defined as SpO
resultsGroup R-R demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression (11.1% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.045) and of hypotension requiring vasopressors (16.7% vs. 41.7%; P = 0.020). However, transient involuntary movements (25.0% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.111) and cough (38.9% vs. 22.2%; P = 0.125) were numerically more frequent in Group R-R, though not statistically significant. All procedures were completed successfully without discontinuation. Hypertension, arrhythmias, procedural times, and satisfaction scores were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared to propofol-remifentanil, remimazolam-remifentanil provides effective moderate sedation for FOB with superior respiratory safety and reduced hypotension requiring vasopressors, despite a numerically higher incidence of transient movement and cough. It thus represents a promising alternative for maintaining spontaneous ventilation during FOB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40952556What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.