Journal List > Korean J Anesthesiol > v.78(2) > 1516090575

TOOLS
Park, Na, Kim, Ryu, Jang, and Shin: Effect of remimazolam on postoperative delirium and cognitive function in adults undergoing general anesthesia or procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Clinical Research Article

Korean J Anesthesiol 2025;78(2):118-128.

Published online: 3 January 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.24493

Effect of remimazolam on postoperative delirium and cognitive function in adults undergoing general anesthesia or procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ji-In Park1, Hyo-Seok Na1, 2, Ji-Na Kim1, Jung-Hee Ryu1, 2, Howon Jang1, Hyun-Jung Shin1, 2

1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

2Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Hyun-Jung Shin, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea Tel: +82-31-787-7508 Fax: +82-31-787-4063 Email: medidoc@snubh.org

Received 18 July 2024       Revised 6 December 2024       Accepted 8 December 2024

© The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Remimazolam is a novel short-acting benzodiazepine. This study compared the effects of remimazolam and propofol on cognitive function in adult patients after surgery or other procedures.

Methods

We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus, for relevant studies. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who experienced delirium or impaired cognitive function postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We estimated the odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model.

Results

In total, 1295 patients from 11 randomized controlled trials were included. The incidence of postoperative delirium was 8.0% in the remimazolam group and 10.4% in the propofol group that was not significantly different (OR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.39–1.42], P = 0.369, I2 = 32%). More favorable cognitive function, as assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination, was observed in the remimazolam group compared to the propofol group (MD: 1.06, 95% CI [0.32–1.80], P = 0.005, I2 = 89%). Remimazolam lowered the incidence of hypotension (OR: 0.28, 95% CI [0.21–0.37], P = 0.000, I2 = 0%) compared to propofol.

Conclusions

Remimazolam did not increase the risk of postoperative delirium and maintained cognitive function well, providing hemodynamic stability during surgery compared to propofol.

Keywords: Cognition, Cognitive function, Delirium, Hypotension, Postoperative nausea and vomiting, Propofol, Remimazolam

Introduction

The safe and efficient management of anesthesia during surgical procedures is essential. Despite the availability of excellent anesthetic agents such as propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam, each has its limitations, and efforts to find ideal hypnotic and sedative agents are ongoing.
Recently introduced to the medical field, remimazolam is increasingly used in both general anesthesia and procedural sedation [1]. It exhibits many characteristics of an ideal anesthetic, including rapid onset, a short half-life, minimal effects on respiratory or cardiovascular function, and pharmacological reversibility [1]. Ongoing research on the efficacy and safety of remimazolam as an anesthetic further amplifies its promising expectations as an ideal hypnotic and sedative agent [2–4].
Postoperative delirium is a serious complication that occurs after surgery. It not only extends the hospital stay and increases healthcare costs but also has long-term effects on cognitive function (i.e., dementia) [5,6], making it a critical issue to address. Anesthesia can influence the development of postoperative delirium, and research on the effects of different anesthetic methods and agents is ongoing [7]. Given these considerations, investigating the impact of remimazolam on postoperative delirium and cognitive function is particularly relevant. Benzodiazepines are known risk factors for delirium [8]. Although remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, its effects on postoperative delirium and cognitive function remain controversial.
Based on the hypothesis that remimazolam does not increase the risk of postoperative cognitive decline, this study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium and cognitive function between patients administered remimazolam and propofol under general anesthesia or procedural sedation. 

Materials and Methods

This meta-analysis was conducted and documented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [9]. We registered a detailed, predefined protocol for this study in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; identifier: CRD42024566651).

Eligible criteria

The following population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) were used to define the inclusion criteria: (1) participants undergoing surgeries or procedures, (2) performing general anesthesia sedation using remimazolam and propofol, (3) studies that compared the incidence of postoperative delirium or cognitive function, and (4) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. Exclusion criteria were retrospective cohort studies, meta-analyses, review articles, editorials, letters to the editor, case reports, observational studies, study protocols, conference abstracts, and animal studies.

Search strategy

To identify suitable RCTs for this study, we searched electronic databases, including PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from their inception to July 04, 2024, without any restrictions on language, region, publication year, or journal. The search terms included ‘remimazolam,’ ‘Byfavo,’ ‘Anerem,’ ‘Aptimyda,’ ‘Ruima,’ ‘delirium,’ ‘cognitive dysfunction,’ ‘cognitive impairment,’ and ‘cognition.’ The detailed literature search strategies are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

Study selection and data extraction

Two independent reviewers (JIP and HJS) selected appropriate RCTs for data synthesis based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The non-English article [10] was translated using Google Translate [11] and ChatGPT-4 [12], both of which have established accuracy. Relevant studies from each electronic database were selected by reviewing titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review, to determine the final studies to be included in the analysis. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (HSN).
Following the evaluation of the final RCTs by two independent reviewers (JIP and HJS), key variables were extracted and documented in a data collection form for synthesis. The collected data included information such as authors, publication year, sample size, mean age of participants, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS), and details regarding remimazolam and propofol (including induction and maintenance doses). Additionally, data on the occurrence of postoperative delirium and hypotension were recorded. Postoperative cognitive function status (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score) was also assessed. Median values with interquartile ranges were converted to means with standard deviations (SDs) using Wan’s formula [13]. For graphically represented data, values were extracted using WebPlotDigitizer (version 4.8; Ankit Rohatgi; Available at https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer).

Assessment of risk of bias and evidence quality

Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias for each outcome of the included studies using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [14]. This evaluation addressed five domains: 1) bias arising from the randomization process, 2) bias due to deviations from intended interventions, 3) bias due to missing outcome data, 4) bias in outcome measurement, and 5) bias in the selection of reported results. The risk of bias was categorized as ‘low risk,’ ‘some concerns,’ or ‘high risk.’
The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system that considers five domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias [15].

Outcome measures

The incidence of postoperative delirium or cognitive function was considered as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension, as it is known to be related to changes in cognitive function after surgery [16].

Statistical analysis

The effect size for each trial was calculated using Stata SETM (version 17.0; Stata Corp.) to describe the effects of the interventions. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables were adopted as effect sizes. A random-effects model was adopted for all statistical analyses to provide a robust estimation of the effect size considering the variability between studies. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
The level of heterogeneity among the pooled effect sizes was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics and classified as none (I2 < 25%), low (I2 = 26%‒49%), moderate (I2 = 50%‒74%), or high (I2 > 76%) [17]. When the heterogeneity was reported to be high, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity, including publication year, sample size, age, type of anesthesia, ASA-PS, and dose of remimazolam for induction as covariates. Furthermore, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to detect small study effects to determine whether any single study could influence the robustness of the pooled effect size. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the type of anesthesia (general anesthesia and procedural sedation).
Considering Cochrane’s guidelines [18], as the number of included studies for each outcome was less than 10, we did not assess publication bias either visually (funnel plot) or statistically (Egger’s test).
In a meta-analysis, the potential non-independence of results from studies with multiple intervention arms was addressed by splitting the shared group into two distinct groups [19]. This decision was guided by the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for handling multiple comparisons [18]. Pre-specified criteria were established based on similarities in the intervention type, population characteristics, and outcome measures. Separate effect sizes were calculated for each group, and the robustness of the findings was confirmed through sensitivity analyses.  

Results

Study selection

Initially, 333 articles were identified using electronic databases. After removing 125 duplicates, screening based on titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 63 and 124 articles, respectively. After excluding two studies for which the full manuscripts could not be retrieved from either the database or the authors, the full texts of 17 eligible studies were thoroughly reviewed, and 11 were included in the final analysis [10,19–28]. The following reasons were identified for excluding studies during the review process: the primary outcome was not measured [29,30]; propofol was used only as an adjuvant agent [31,32]; the study was a protocol rather than a completed study [33]; and the study design was retrospective [34]. A flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1.

Characteristics of study and participant

The characteristics of the RCTs included in the final analysis are summarized in Table 1. A total of 1,295 adult participants were included, with 664 and 631 assigned to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively. In nine studies [10,19,22–28], the participants received general anesthesia, while the remaining two studies [20,21] involved participants undergoing bronchoscopy and hip fracture surgery after sedation. The assessment tools for detecting postoperative delirium include the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) [20,24,25,27], the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) [22], and the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PQRS) [19,28]. The MMSE was used to determine the status of postoperative cognitive function [10,19–21,23,26]. Various regimens were applied for total intravenous anesthesia induction and maintenance with remimazolam and propofol perioperatively, except in one study [25] that added desflurane to remimazolam and propofol for anesthesia maintenance.

Incidence of postoperative delirium

The incidence of postoperative delirium was reported in eight RCTs [19–22,24,25,27,28] with nine comparisons (two different comparisons were made in one study [19]). The incidence of postoperative delirium was 8.0% (44 cases out of 552) in the remimazolam group and 10.4% (54 cases out of 520) in the propofol group. The overall pooled effect size revealed that remimazolam administration did not increase the incidence of postoperative delirium (OR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.39–1.42], P = 0.369, I2 = 32%; Fig. 2).
Subgroup analysis showed that remimazolam significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with propofol after sedation (OR: 0.24, 95% CI [0.08–0.73], P = 0.012, I2 = 0%; Fig. 2), whereas no significant differences were observed between remimazolam and propofol after general anesthesia (OR: 1.04, 95% CI [0.65–1.66], P = 0.886, I2 = 0%; Fig. 2). Considering that the heterogeneity changed through subgrouping, the low heterogeneity (I2 = 32%) in the overall effect size may be due to the type of anesthesia.
Sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled OR did not change significantly after omitting each study, supporting the robustness of our results (Supplementary Fig. 1).

Postoperative cognitive function

Postoperative cognitive function was assessed in six RCTs [10,19–21,23,26] with eight comparisons (two different comparisons were made in two studies [10,19]), using the MMSE as the assessment tool. A significant difference was observed between the two groups (MD: 1.06, 95% CI [0.32–1.80], P = 0.005, I2 = 89%; Fig. 3).
In the subgroup analysis, postoperative cognitive function was higher in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group after general anesthesia (MD: 1.30, 95% CI [0.53–2.06], P = 0.001, I2 = 90%; Fig. 3), but not after sedation (MD: –0.13, 95% CI [–2.18 to 1.91], P = 0.898, I2 = 63%; Fig. 3). Despite subgrouping, the heterogeneity remained high. To identify the potential source of this heterogeneity, additional meta-regression was conducted, including publication year, type of anesthesia, ASA-PS, sample size, induction dose of remimazolam (induction dose of propofol, maintenance dose of remimazolam, and propofol were omitted due to collinearity), and age. No covariates significantly influenced the heterogeneity, suggesting the presence of other hidden factors (Supplementary Table 2).
The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis did not reveal any changes in the pooled effect size of postoperative cognitive function (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Incidence of hypotension

The incidence of hypotension was reported in seven studies [7,8,15–17,20,21,23] with eight comparisons (one study included two different comparisons [19]). The incidence of hypotension was 23.2% in the remimazolam group and 49.9% in the propofol group. The overall pooled effect size indicated that remimazolam significantly lowered the incidence of hypotension in participants undergoing surgery or procedure (OR: 0.28, 95 CI [0.21–0.37], P = 0.000, I2 = 0%; Fig. 4).
Subgroup analysis demonstrated that remimazolam significantly decreased the incidence of hypotension compared to propofol in both general anesthesia (OR: 0.28, 95 CI [0.20–0.39], P = 0.000, I2 = 0%; Fig. 4) and sedation settings (OR: 0.26, 95 CI [0.13–0.52], P = 0.0002, I2 = 0%; Fig. 4).
In the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, no study skewed the effect size, supporting the robustness of our results (Supplementary Fig. 3).

Risk of bias

The overall risk-of-bias assessment results are shown in Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 5. The RoB 2 tool assesses studies based on intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. The included studies were then evaluated and classified using this approach. Six studies [10,20,24–27] used the ITT method, while five studies [19,21–23,28] used the PP method. Four RCTs [23–25,27] were classified as ‘Low,’ and seven RCTs [7,16,20] had ‘Some concerns’ regarding the randomization process [10,20–22,26,28] or deviations from intended interventions [19,22].

Certainty of the evidence

As shown in Supplementary Table 3, the certainty of the evidence was moderate for the four outcome variables (incidence of postoperative delirium and hypotension). However, the assessment of postoperative cognitive function resulted in a decrease in the evidence level owing to concerns regarding the risk of bias and high heterogeneity.

Discussion

Our meta-analysis showed that remimazolam, when used under general anesthesia or sedation, did not increase the risk of postoperative delirium, and resulted in better postoperative cognitive function than propofol. Furthermore, the lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia compared to propofol supports the favorable hemodynamic effects of remimazolam. The similar incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with remimazolam and propofol further strengthens the notion that remimazolam is a valuable anesthetic agent.
Benzodiazepines have long been known to increase the risk of delirium [8]. However, recent questions about the actual impact of benzodiazepines on delirium incidence have led to criticism of the existing guidelines that classify all benzodiazepines as risk factors, regardless of their duration of action [35]. Additionally, a meta-analysis examining the use of benzodiazepines during the perioperative period found that benzodiazepines did not increase the risk of delirium, highlighting the need for further research [36]. The results of the present study support this hypothesis. Although remimazolam is a benzodiazepine, it is short-acting and does not impair cognitive function compared with propofol when used for general anesthesia or sedation. In fact, participants who received remimazolam showed better cognitive function than those who received propofol postoperatively. Therefore, we believe that there is little reason to hesitate in using remimazolam to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium. However, well-designed studies are required to confirm this conclusion.
Maintaining hemodynamic stability during surgery is arguably the most crucial aspect of anesthesia management. Unfortunately, the currently used hypnotics tend to cause some degree of blood pressure reduction, necessitating careful monitoring and management. In our study, remimazolam reduced the incidence of hypotension by 72% compared to propofol and decreased the incidence of bradycardia by 54%. These clinically significant reductions suggest that remimazolam can be safely used in critically ill patients for whom maintaining blood pressure is of paramount importance.
One factor contributing to remimazolam causing fewer postoperative cognitive function impairments than propofol is its ability to provide hemodynamic stability. Various studies have examined the correlation between intraoperative blood pressure and postoperative delirium, showing that hypotension is associated with an increased incidence of delirium. Wachtendorf et al. [16] reported an association between mean arterial pressure < 55 mmHg and postoperative delirium in participants undergoing noncardiac surgery. Duan et al. [37] identified that intraoperative hypotension (mean arterial pressure ≤ 65 mmHg) maintained for over 5 min increased the incidence of postoperative delirium in older adults after thoracic and orthopedic surgery. Moreover, studies have indicated that blood pressure fluctuations rather than absolute levels of hypotension can predict the occurrence of postoperative delirium [38]. Considering this, the hemodynamic stability demonstrated by remimazolam in our study likely contributed to the maintenance of cognitive function and did not increase the incidence of postoperative delirium. However, further research on this topic is required.
Several aspects should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, three tools were used to assess postoperative delirium. However, the CAM [39], DSM-V [40], and PQRS [41] are all validated methods for assessing cognitive function, and as long as researchers follow their planned protocols, the evaluation of postoperative delirium is likely to be accurate. Secondly, anesthetic drugs are administered in various regimens. Currently, the optimal dose of remimazolam has not been established; therefore, drugs are administered based on anesthesia depth to achieve the intended anesthetic effects within a safe range. This variability may have contributed to some degree of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. However, most outcome variables showed no or low heterogeneity. The meta-regression analysis confirmed that regimen variability did not contribute to the degree of postoperative cognitive function that showed high heterogeneity. Third, the heterogeneity in the anesthesia methods among the included studies may have influenced the generalizability of our findings. Although we performed a subgroup analysis differentiating between general anesthesia and sedation, the results may still be affected by variations in administration techniques and protocols. Furthermore, the diversity in surgical types across studies poses a challenge in conducting meaningful subgroup analyses. Given the range of surgeries included, from minor outpatient procedures to major surgeries, it was deemed inappropriate to attempt to further categorize the interventions. This limitation underscores the need for caution when interpreting the results, and emphasizes the complexity of anesthesia practice in various clinical contexts. Future studies should strive for greater homogeneity in surgical procedures to allow for more nuanced comparisons. Finally, the confounding variables and sources of heterogeneity were not identified.
In conclusion, when used for general anesthesia or sedation, remimazolam did not increase the incidence of postoperative delirium and provided better hemodynamic stability during surgery than propofol. Importantly, this was associated with improved postoperative cognitive function. Furthermore, it does not increase the incidence of PONV. These findings suggest that remimazolam is a safe and valuable anesthetic agent with the potential to significantly enhance patient recovery, particularly in terms of cognitive outcomes. Further clinical studies are required to confirm these findings.

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

Jung-Hee Ryu has been an editor for the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology since 2019. However, she was not involved in any process of review for this article, including peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision-making. There were no other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Data Availability

The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Ji-In Park (Conceptualization; Data curation; Validation; Writing – original draft)

Hyo-Seok Na (Conceptualization; Investigation; Methodology; Resources)

Ji-Na Kim (Conceptualization; Methodology; Resources; Validation)

Jung-Hee Ryu (Conceptualization; Methodology; Resources; Validation)

Howon Jang (Resources; Visualization)

Hyun-Jung Shin (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Validation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1.
Search strategy for each database.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf
Supplementary Table 2.
Meta-regression analysis for the potential source of heterogeneity of MMSE.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf
Supplementary Table 3.
Level of Certainty for each outcome.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf
Supplementary Fig. 1.
Forest plot for the sensitivity analysis of the incidence of postoperative delirium in the comparison between the remimazolam and propofol groups. Sensitivity analysis identified no alteration in effect size when the studies were omitted.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf
Supplementary Fig. 2.
Forest plot for the sensitivity analysis of postoperative cognitive function. The sensitivity analysis did not show effect size changes after omitting each study.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf
Supplementary Fig. 3.
Forest plot for sensitivity analysis of the incidence of hypotension during surgery compared with the remimazolam and propofol groups. The sensitivity analysis did not show any change in the significance of the pooled effect size.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf
Supplementary Fig. 4.
Risk of bias summary. Green circle, low risk; yellow circle, concerns; red circle, high risk.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Fig-4.pdf
Supplementary Fig. 5.
The overall risk of bias as a summary plot.
kja-24493-Supplementary-Fig-5.pdf

References

1. Masui K. Remimazolam: its clinical pharmacology and evolving role in anesthesia and sedation practice. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2024; 37:344–51. DOI: 10.1097/aco.0000000000001384. PMID: 38841907.
2. Koyama Y, Nishikawa H, Murase Y, Morita K, Tsuzaki K. General anesthesia using remimazolam and remifentanil in combination with local anesthetics without neuromuscular blocking agents in a patient with myotonic dystrophy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2023; 76:391–3. DOI: 10.4097/kja.23133. PMID: 36974439.
3. Choi SH, Min KT, Park EK, Park S. Comparison of hypotension incidence between remimazolam and propofol in patients with hypertension undergoing neurosurgery: prospective, randomized, single-blind trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024; 24:198. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02578-7. PMID: 38834996.
4. Sancheti S, Uppal V. Is remimazolam the future of sedation for regional anesthesia? Can J Anaesth. 2024; 71:731–6. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02697-2. PMID: 38378938.
5. Kunicki ZJ, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER, Tommet D, Feng Y, Fong TG, et al. Six-year cognitive trajectory in older adults following major surgery and delirium. JAMA Intern Med. 2023; 183:442–50. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0144. PMID: 36939716.
6. Sprung J, Roberts RO, Weingarten TN, Nunes Cavalcante A, Knopman DS, Petersen RC, et al. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients is associated with subsequent cognitive impairment. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119:316–23. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex130. PMID: 28854531.
7. Shin HJ, Woo Nam S, Kim H, Yim S, Han SH, Hwang JW, et al. Postoperative delirium after dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in healthy older adults undergoing orthopedic lower limb surgery with spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2023; 138:164–71. DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000004438. PMID: 36534899.
8. American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60:616–31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03923.x. PMID: 22376048.
9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID: 33782057.
10. Li Z, Ling Y, Hong H, Sun Y, Gao X, Xie Y. Application of remimazolam toluene sulfonate combined with paravertebral nerve block in thoracoscopic lobectomy under SEDline monitoring. Chin J Anat Clin. 2023; 28:262–8.
11. Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, et al. The accuracy of google translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 171:677–9. DOI: 10.7326/m19-0891. PMID: 31357212.
12. Ghassemiazghandi M. An evaluaton of ChatGPT’s translation accuracy using BLEU score. Theory Pract Lang Stud. 2024; 14:985–94. DOI: 10.17507/tpls.1404.07.
13. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:135. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. PMID: 25524443.
14. Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. PMID: 31462531.
15. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004; 4:38. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38. PMID: 15615589.
16. Wachtendorf LJ, Azimaraghi O, Santer P, Linhardt FC, Blank M, Suleiman A, et al. Association between intraoperative arterial hypotension and postoperative delirium after noncardiac surgery: a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2022; 134:822–33. DOI: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005739. PMID: 34517389.
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327:557–60. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. PMID: 12958120.
18. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al.Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.5. (updated August 2024), Cochrane. 2023. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current.
19. Luo W, Sun M, Wan J, Zhang Z, Huang J, Zhang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol in patients undergoing day surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023; 23:182. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02092-2. PMID: 37237331.
20. Duan G, Wu J, Xu Q, Jiang J, Lan H, Zhang X, et al. Effects of remimazolam on early postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients with hip fracture. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024; 29:146–53.
21. Gao S, Wang T, Cao L, Li L, Yang S. Clinical effects of remimazolam alone or in combination with dexmedetomidine in patients receiving bronchoscopy and influences on postoperative cognitive function: a randomized-controlled trial. Int J Clin Pharm. 2023; 45:137–45. DOI: 10.1007/s11096-022-01487-4. PMID: 36346544.
22. Jeon YG, Kim S, Park JH, Lee J, Song SA, Lim HK, et al. Incidence of intraoperative hypotension in older patients undergoing total intravenous anesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102:e36440. DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000036440. PMID: 38065872.
23. Kuang Q, Zhong N, Ye C, Zhu X, Wei F. Propofol versus remimazolam on cognitive function, hemodynamics, and oxygenation during one-lung ventilation in older patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023; 37:1996–2005. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.06.027. PMID: 37422336.
24. Liu T, Zhao H, Zhao X, Qu M. Comparison of remimazolam and propofol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing radical resection of colon cancer: a single-center prospective randomized controlled study. Med Sci Monit. 2024; 30:e943784. DOI: 10.12659/msm.943784. PMID: 38594896.
25. Yang JJ, Lei L, Qiu D, Chen S, Xing LK, Zhao JW, et al. Effect of remimazolam on postoperative delirium in older adult patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023; 17:143–53. DOI: 10.2147/dddt.s392569. PMID: 36712948.
26. Zhang J, Wang X, Zhang Q, Wang Z, Zhu S. Application effects of remimazolam and propofol on elderly patients undergoing hip replacement. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022; 22:118. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-022-01641-5. PMID: 35461223.
27. Zhang J, Zhang J, Wang Y, Bai X, Guo Q, Liu W, et al. Effect of remimazolam vs propofol on emergence from general anesthesia in patients undergoing cerebral endovascular procedures: a randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial. J Clin Anesth. 2024; 93:111356. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111356. PMID: 38056052.
28. Zhang L, Wang Z, Liu Y, Zhang X, Wu Y. Comparison of remimazolam tosilate and propofol sedation on the early postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing day surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2024; 18:1743–54. DOI: 10.2147/dddt.s456675. PMID: 38803562.
29. Duan J, Ju X, Wang X, Liu N, Xu S, Wang S. Effects of remimazolam and propofol on emergence agitation in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement: a clinical, randomized, controlled study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023; 17:2669–78. DOI: 10.2147/dddt.s419146. PMID: 37680862.
30. Tan Y, Ouyang W, Tang Y, Fang N, Fang C, Quan C. Effect of remimazolam tosilate on early cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 37:576–83. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15761. PMID: 34907594.
31. Liao YQ, Min J, Wu ZX, Hu Z. Comparison of the effects of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients with gastric cancer. Front Aging Neurosci. 2023; 15:1123089. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1123089. PMID: 37342357.
32. Wang M, Gao ZF, Cui L, Duan Y, Zhang H. The application of remimazolam toluene sulfonate with propofol in orthotopic liver transplantation. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2024; 86:94–100. DOI: 10.36468/pharmaceutical-sciences.spl.866.
33. Li HX, Li BL, Wang TH, Xu X, Wang F, Zhang X, et al. Comparison of the effects of remimazolam tosylate and propofol on postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2023; 13:e071912. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071912. PMID: 37247962.
34. Zhan LS, Xu XF, Zhang YF, Huang G, Li D, Lan YP. Effect of the of remazolam toluenesulfonate and IPACK on postoperative rehabilitation and sedation in elderly patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. Trop J Pharm Res. 2022; 21:1771–8. DOI: 10.4314/tjpr.v21i8.26.
35. Evered LA, Pryor KO. Benzodiazepines and postoperative delirium: should we be as cautious as we are? Br J Anaesth. 2023; 131:629–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.07.004. PMID: 37544837.
36. Wang E, Belley-Côté EP, Young J, He H, Saud H, D’Aragon F, et al. Effect of perioperative benzodiazepine use on intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Br J Anaesth. 2023; 131:302–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.12.001. PMID: 36621439.
37. Duan W, Zhou CM, Yang JJ, Zhang Y, Li ZP, Ma DQ, et al. A long duration of intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative delirium occurrence following thoracic and orthopedic surgery in elderly. J Clin Anesth. 2023; 88:111125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111125. PMID: 37084642.
38. Hirsch J, DePalma G, Tsai TT, Sands LP, Leung JM. Impact of intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations on early postoperative delirium after non-cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 115:418–26. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu458. PMID: 25616677.
39. Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113:941–8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-12-941. PMID: 2240918.
40. Regier DA, Narrow WE, Clarke DE, Kraemer HC, Kuramoto SJ, Kuhl EA, et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 2013; 170:59–70. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999. PMID: 23111466.
41. Royse CF, Newman S, Chung F, Stygall J, McKay RE, Boldt J, et al. Development and feasibility of a scale to assess postoperative recovery: the post-operative quality recovery scale. Anesthesiology. 2010; 113:892–905. DOI: 10.1097/aln.0b013e3181d960a9. PMID: 20601860.

Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection. A total of 333 articles were identified through the electronic databases. After excluding 125 studies for duplication, 63 and 124 articles were removed from the article pool based on the fitness of the title and the abstract, respectively. After removing two studies that could not be retrieved, the full texts of the remaining 17 articles were reviewed. Finally, a total of 11 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, RCT: randomized controlled trial.
kja-24493f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Forest plot for the incidence of postoperative delirium. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of postoperative delirium between the remimazolam and the propofol group. In the subgroup analysis, remimazolam lowered the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with propofol when used for sedation. GA: general anesthesia, FMZ: flumazenil.
kja-24493f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Forest plots for postoperative cognitive function. Participants who were administered remimazolam showed better cognitive function than those who were administered propofol after surgery, and this was also observed in the general anesthesia subgroup, but not in the sedation subgroup. GA: general anesthesia, FMZ: flumazenil, SD: standard deviation.
kja-24493f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Forest plot for the incidence of hypotension during surgery. Significantly lower incidence of hypotension was observed in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group. GA: general anesthesia, FMZ: flumazenil.
kja-24493f4.tif
Table 1.
Characteristics of Included Studies
Author (yr) Group Sample size Age ASA-PS Surgery/procedure Anesthesia Induction dose Maintenance dose Assessment tools
RMZ PPF RMZ PPF RMZ PPF RMZ PPF
Duan 2024 [20] 2 53 53 77.4 75.3 2–3 Hip fracture surgery Sedation 0.05 mg/kg 0.3–0.5 mg/kg 0.1–0.3 mg/kg/h 0.5–3 mg/kg/h CAM/MMSE
Gao 2023 [21] 2 30 30 59.9 58.9 1–3 Bronchoscopy Sedation 6 mg/kg/h 2 mg/kg 0.6–2 mg/kg/h 4–6 mg/kg/h MMSE
Jeon 2023 [22] 2 60 62 70.9 71.5 1–3 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and TURBT General 6 mg/kg/h 4 µg/ml 1–2 mg/kg/h 2.5–4 µg/ml DSM-V
Li 2023 [10] 4 20, 20 20, 20 53.5, 57.3 56.0, 51.5 1–2 Thoracoscopic lobectomy General 0.2 mg/kg 2 mg/kg 0.4–1.2 mg/kg/h 4–10 mg/kg/h MMSE
Kuang 2023 [23] 2 42 42 65.4 65.2 1–3 Thoracoscopic lobectomy General 0.3 mg/kg 2 mg/kg 0.6–1.2 mg/kg/h 2–10 mg/kg/h MMSE
Liu 2024 [24] 2 50 50 71.6 71.4 1–3 Radical resection of colon cancer General 0.1–0.2 mg/kg 1–2 mg/kg 0.4–1.2 mg/kg/h 4–10 mg/kg/h CAM
Luo 2023 [19] 3 38, 38 38 43.5, 44.7 44.3 1–2 Day surgery General 0.3 mg/kg 2–2.5 mg/kg 1–3 mg/kg/h 6–12 mg/kg/h PQRS/MMSE
Yang 2023 [25] 2 147 153 68 68 1–3 Orthopedic surgery General 0.2–0.3 mg/kg 1–1.5 mg/kg RMZ + Desflurane PPF + Desflurane CAM
Zhang 2022 [26] 2 30 29 74.3 75 2–3 Hip replacement General 0.2–0.4 mg/kg 1.5–2 mg/kg 0.3–0.5 mg/kg/h 4–8 mg/kg/h MMSE
Zhang 2024a [27] 2 71 71 56.6 56 1–3 Cerebral endovascular procedures General 0.1 mg/kg 1–1.5 mg/kg 0.3–0.7 mg/kg/h 4–10 mg/kg/h CAM
Zhang 2024b [28] 2 65 63 49.1 47.6 1–2 Day surgery General 0.3 mg/kg 2–2.5 mg/kg 1–1.5 mg/kg/h 4–8 mg/kg/h PQRS

RMZ: remimazolam, PPF: propofol, ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, CAM: Confusion Assessment Method, MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination, TURBT: transurethral resection of bladder tumor, DSM-V: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, PQRS: Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale.

TOOLS
Similar articles