Remimazolam is made by combining midazolam and remifentanil as an alternative to conventional sedatives. To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam and midazolam. A search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrial.gov from inception till December 26, 2021, for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of remimazolam during the above-mentioned procedure. There was no restriction of language. A quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed. The systemic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline statement. Three randomized controlled trials involving 539 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam during colonoscopy, remimazolam results in reduced need for top-up doses (RR= 3.45, 95% CI=1.07 to 11.14; P=0.04, I 2 =84%). The need for rescue medication was reduced with remimazolam as compared to midazolam (RR=2.42, 95%CI=1.04 to 5.61; P=0.04, I 2 =96%). There was no significant difference observed between the two drugs on completion of colonoscopy and the overall procedural sedation, but the sensitivity analysis favored remimazolam over midazolam for procedural sedation (RR=4.08, 95%CI=2.35 to 7.09; P<0.00001, I 2 =39%). This analysis demonstrates the advantages of remimazolam over other agents and sets a platform for relevant future studies.

Background Pregnancy alters the anatomic landmarks for internal jugular vein (IJV) cannulation. In this study, IJV cannulation was simulated, and success of the technique was evaluated using ultrasound. Methods Term pregnant women and non-pregnant female volunteers were recruited. The degree of difficulty in assessing neck anatomy was noted. The optimal insertion points for cannulation were marked on the skin of each subject according to the central landmark and palpatory techniques. The midpoint of a 15-10 MHz linear transducer was placed over each insertion point, and the vertical cursor of the ultrasound, which represented the path of the needle, was placed in the image. The outcome was an IJV puncture, a carotid artery (CA) puncture, or a missed attempt. Results One hundred and sixty-one women, 99 pregnant and 62 non-pregnant, were studied. The identification of landmarks was more difficult in pregnant women (P = 0.01). The rates of successful IJV punctures, CA punctures, and missed attempts did not differ significantly between pregnant and non-pregnant women. Carotid artery punctures using the central landmark technique in pregnant and non-pregnant subjects were 19% and 10%, respectively. Corresponding figures for the palpatory approach were 6% and 3%, respectively. The degree of IJV overlap of the CA in the palpatory technique was greater in pregnant women (38% vs 18% showed [ 75% overlap; P \ 0.001), a difference that remained after controlling for body mass index Conclusion The IJV overlies the CA to a greater extent in pregnant patients than in non-pregnant patients. Thus, a landmark approach for IJV cannulation might expose pregnant women to a greater risk of carotid puncture. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT T00464828).

No abstract