Background and Objectives: This meta-analysis compares the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for sedation during regional anesthesia, focusing on respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to November 2024 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam with dexmedetomidine. Outcomes included respiratory depression (primary outcome), bradycardia, hypotension, hypertension, respiratory and heart rates, mean arterial pressure, sedation onset time, emergence time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Effect sizes were calculated as relative risks (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) using random-effects models. Results: Five RCTs involving 439 participants were included. Remimazolam did not significantly increase respiratory depression risk compared to dexmedetomidine (RR: 1.36, 95% CI [0.39, 4.71], p = 0.6305, I² = 44%). Bradycardia incidence was lower with remimazolam (RR: 0.15, 95% CI [0.06, 0.39], p = 0.0001, I² = 0%). Remimazolam showed faster sedation onset (MD: −6.04 min, 95% CI [−6.99, −5.09], p = 0.0000, I² = 68%). Both drugs demonstrated similar occurrences of hypotension and hypertension, respiratory rates, mean arterial pressures, emergence times, and incidences of PONV. Conclusions: Remimazolam offers comparable safety and efficacy to dexmedetomidine, with advantages such as lower bradycardia risk and faster sedation onset. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative option during regional anesthesia, although further large-scale studies are warranted to confirm these results and optimize sedation practices.

Background and Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation during colonoscopy, focusing on hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes included hypotension (primary outcome), bradycardia, respiratory depression, injection pain, sedation onset time, emergence time, procedure success rate, and recovery room stay. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) using random-effects models. Results: Fourteen RCTs with 3290 participants were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.39, 0.51], p = 0.0000), bradycardia (RR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.25, 0.53], p = 0.0000), respiratory depression (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45], p = 0.0000), and injection pain (RR: 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], p = 0.0000) compared to propofol. Remimazolam had slower sedation onset (MD: 15.97 s, 95% CI [8.30, 23.64], p = 0.0000) but allowed faster emergence (MD: −0.91 min, 95% CI [−1.69, −0.13], p = 0.023) and shorter recovery room stays (MD: −2.20 min, 95% CI [−3.23, −1.17], p = 0.0000). Both drugs had similar procedure success rates. Conclusions: Remimazolam demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared to propofol, reducing risks of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain while enabling faster recovery. These findings support remimazolam as a viable sedative for colonoscopy, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these results.

Objective: When conducting a caesarean section under regional anaesthesia, either epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia can be used. Patients who underwent caesarean section in our hospital were surveyed retrospectively to confirm and compare the merits and demerits of spinal anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia to determine the most efficient approach.Methods: Mothers meeting the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (ASA) I or II, who underwent caesarean sections at our hospital were surveyed retrospectively. The survey targeted one hundred patients each who received spinal anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia. The time from anaesthesia to surgical incision (A to S time), entire anaesthesia time, and the usage of vasopressor and midazolam were compared according to anaesthetic approach.Results: The A to S time and the entire anaesthesia time of the group that underwent spinal anaesthesia were significantly short compared to the times recorded for the group who underwent epidural anaesthesia, and the use of vasopressor was more frequent in the spinal anaesthesia group because their blood pressure decline was larger.Conclusion: The A to S time and the entire anaesthetic time were longer for epidural anaesthesia than for spinal anaesthesia. However, the haemodynamic change was smaller and vasopressor was hardly used in the former group. Therefore, the choice of the technical method will depend on the clinical, anaesthetic, and obstetric situation.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.321.9028How to cite this:Shin YD, Park SH, Kim HT, Park CJ, Lee JH, Choi YJ. The effect of anaesthesia technique on caesarean section. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(1):147-150.

Objective: Propofol is more effective than inhalational anesthesia; however, the results for the management of acute pain remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the incidence of acute pain after inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia among patients who underwent thoracotomy at our hospital. Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective observational study using data from electronic medical records. Sixty patients aged ≥20 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II who underwent regular and emergency thoracotomy between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, at Chungbuk National University Hospital were included in this study. The anesthesia and postoperative pain records of those who received total intravenous anesthesia (n=30) and inhalation anesthesia (n=30) were retrospectively reviewed. The pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) was evaluated at 2, 8, 24, and 30 hours postoperatively. Results: The average NRS score of patients who received total intravenous anesthesia was lesser than that of those who received inhalational anesthesia. Moreover, the difference in the NRS scores at eight hours postoperatively was statistically significant (P <0.05). Patients who received inhalational anesthesia had a higher pain score and experienced more severe pain than those who received intravenous anesthesia. Conclusions: Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil provided better analgesia for acute postoperative pain in patients who underwent thoracotomy than inhalational anesthesia, suggesting it may be considered the combination of choice for thoracic surgery.Abbreviations: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, CRTS: Chronic post-thoracotomy pain syndrome, GABA: Gamma-aminobutyric acid, IL: Interleukin, NRS: numeric rating scale.doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907How to cite this: Lee JY, Jeong ST, Hwang JH, Park SH. Postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracotomy: A comparison between total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(10):2219-2222. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.