Cited by 87Anesthesia and Sedative AgentsAnesthesia and Pain ManagementAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research

Application effects of remimazolam and propofol on elderly patients undergoing hip replacement

Open access
Zhang, Junbao, Wang, Xin, Zhang, Qing, Wang, Zicheng, Zhu, Shoufeng·2022·BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract

Abstract Objective To explore the anesthetic and analgesic effects of remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement and their effects on respiratory and circulatory systems, stress and cognitive function. Methods Sixty elderly patients undergoing elective hip replacement in the hospital were selected as the research subjects, and they were divided into the remimazolam group and the propofol group according to the admission sequence of patients. The remimazolam group was anesthetized with remimazolam, and the propofol group was anesthetized with propofol. The anesthesia-related indicators, perioperative pain degree [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)], circulatory indicators [heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP)] before anesthesia (T 0 ), immediately before laryngeal mask insertion (T 1 ), at 5 min after laryngeal mask insertion (T 2 ), at 30 min after laryngeal mask insertion (T 3 ) and at 5 min after laryngeal mask removal (T 4 ), stress response indicators (plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisol) before anesthesia induction and at 24 h and 72 h after surgery, cognitive function [Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)] and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results Among the 60 enrolled patients, only 1 case was excluded due to withdrawal, thus 30 cases in the remimazolam group and 29 cases in the propofol group were included. There were statistically significant differences in the heart rate, MAP, plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisol and VAS score in the two groups from the aspects of interaction effect and time-point effect ( P < 0.05). The heart rate and MAP at T 1 , T 2 and T 3 in the two groups were significantly decreased compared with those at T 0 , but the heart rate and MAP in the remimazolam group at T 1 , T 2 and T 3 were significantly higher than those in the propofol group ( P < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in the anesthesia time, awakening time and extubation time between the remimazolam group and the propofol group ( P > 0.05). The levels of plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol in the two groups were significantly higher at 24 h and 72 h after surgery than those before anesthesia induction, and the above levels were significantly lower in the remimazolam group than those in the propofol group ( P < 0.05). The VAS scores at each time point in the two groups were significantly reduced compared to before surgery, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups after surgery ( P > 0.05). The MMSE scores of the two groups were significantly lower at 1 d and 3 d after surgery compared with those before anesthesia induction, but the score in the remimazolam group was significantly higher than that in the propofol group ( P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence rates of adverse reactions were significantly lower in the remimazolam group compared to the propofol group ( P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with propofol, remimazolam can achieve equivalent anesthetic and analgesic effects in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement. However, the latter one can significantly relieve respiratory and circulatory suppression, stress response and cognitive dysfunction, with good safety. Trial registration This single-center, prospective, RCT has completed the registration of the Chinese Clinical Trial Center at 31/12/2021 with the registration number ChiCTR2100055039 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12871-022-01641-5

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Risk of bias was high in 2 trials and moderate in 2 trials for blinding of patients and personnel.

    “The risk of bias was rated as high in 2 trials and moderate in 2 trials for the domain of patients and personnel blinding (15-18).”

    From Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says anesthesiologists could infer treatment allocation from the drugs’ different appearances, supporting a concern about blinding in this trial. It does not rate this trial’s risk of bias as high or moderate, or report ratings across four trials, so the stated counts are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of nausea and vomiting between remimazolam and propofol (OR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.39; I2 = 33%).

    “Based on the fixed-effects model, the OR of remimazolam to propofol in the subgroup of nausea and vomiting was 1.32 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.39; I² = 33%) (Fig. 12), indicating that there existed no statistical conspicuous discrepancy in the prevalence of nausea and vomiting between the 2 arms.”

    From Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results > Adverse reactions table reports nausea and vomiting in 1 of 30 remimazolam patients and 3 of 29 propofol patients, so the paper does compare the two groups on this outcome. It does not report a significance test for nausea and vomiting separately, or the claimed pooled odds ratio, confidence interval, and I²; its reported P value concerns total adverse reactions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The remimazolam group had a lower ΔHR than the propofol group (MD = -4.99; 95% CI, -7.97 to -2.00; I2 = 42%; P = 0.001).

    “Our statistical analysis revealed significant discrepancies between the 2 groups, wherein the remimazolam group having a lower 𝛥 HR (MD = -4.99; 95% CI, -7.97 to -2.00; I² = 42%; P = 0.001) (Fig. 4).”

    From Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    In Results > Circulation indicators (Table 4; page not provided), heart rate falls less from baseline in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group, supporting a smaller heart-rate reduction. This individual study does not report the claimed pooled mean difference, confidence interval, heterogeneity statistic, or P value; the citing sentence describes those as its own statistical analysis. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Risk of bias was moderate in 5 papers for other biases because of singular gender or type of surgery.

    “The risk of bias was rated as moderate in 5 papers for the domain of other biases because of their singular gender or type of surgery (15,19-22).”
  • No meaningful change in nausea/vomiting results was obtained with sensitivity analysis and random-effects model.

    “No meaningful change in the results was obtained when the sensitivity analysis and the random-effects model were used (15,17,18,20,22).”

    From Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (Adverse reactions, Table 7; page unavailable) report nausea and vomiting counts for the two treatment groups. The Statistical analysis section (page unavailable) describes trial-level tests, but the copy reports no sensitivity analysis or random-effects model showing whether the nausea/vomiting results changed. Searches for those analyses found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J., Wang, X., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z., & Zhu, S.
Affiliations
Anhui Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Xin
Venue
BMC Anesthesiology
Published
2022-04-23
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
118-118
ISSN
1471-2253 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224861518
Cited by
86
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 5
FWCI
21.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Anesthesiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Anhui Medical University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Keywords
remimazolam, propofol, total hip arthroplasty, elderly patients, inhalational anesthesia, perioperative analgesia, hemodynamic response, stress response, epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisol, postoperative cognitive function, postoperative pain, adverse drug reactions, laryngeal mask airway, recovery time, postoperative delirium
MeSH terms
Aged, Analgesics, Anesthesia, General, Anesthetics, Benzodiazepines, Epinephrine, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Norepinephrine, Prospective Studies, Propofol

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review