20 Apr 2024Article
To Compare the Anesthetic Effect of Remimazolam and Propofol in Painless Hysteroscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery
Fei Gao 1Yanjun Xie 2Hengwei Zhu 2Chen Chen 2Hongyan Fu 2
Affiliations
Article Info
1 Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Children & Women's Healthcare of Jinan City, 271100 Jinan, Shandong, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Children & Women's Healthcare of Jinan City, 271100 Jinan, Shandong, China
2 Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Children & Women's Healthcare of Jinan City, 271100 Jinan, Shandong, China
Published: 20 Apr 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Objective: Hysteroscopic surgery will stimulate the autonomic nerves innervating the uterus, causing intense discomfort and pain in the examined person, and in severe cases, it will cause blood pressure drop, heart rate slowing, arrhythmia and even cardiac arrest, so most patients need anesthetic intervention. This study to retrospectively compare the anesthetic effect of remimazolam and propofol in minimally invasive painless hysteroscopic surgery and to explore the safety and efficacy of remimazolam. Methods: The clinical data of 110 female patients who underwent painless hysteroscopic minimally invasive surgery in our hospital from January 2023 to June 2023 were collected. The patients were divided into the remimazolam group (group R, n = 55) and the propofol group (group P, n = 55) according to the main anesthetic drugs used during the operation. The changes in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rate (RR) at the time of entry (T0), modified vigilance/sedation score (MOAA/S) 0 (T1), cervical dilation (T2), end of the operation (T3) and anesthesia recovery (T4) were compared between the two groups. Anesthesia induction time, operation time, and anesthesia recovery time were compared between the two groups, and the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions was compared between the two groups. Results: HR, MAP, and SpO2 in group R were significantly higher than those in group P at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in RR between the two groups (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1 and T2 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group R (p < 0.05), and RR at different time points in the group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group P (p < 0.01), and RR at different time points in the same group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). The anesthesia induction time in group R was more prolonged than in group P, and the anesthesia recovery time in group R was shorter than in group P (p < 0.05). The incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, low oxygen saturation, respiratory depression, and injection pain in group R were significantly lower than those in group P (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Intravenous induction of remimazolam at 6 mg·kg-1·h-1 and maintenance of anesthesia at 1–2 mg·kg-1·h-1 have less effect on hemodynamics, faster recovery time and lower incidence of adverse reactions compared with propofol when used in minimally invasive hysteroscopic surgery. Remimazolam can be safely and effectively used in this kind of surgery.
Keywords
- hysteroscopy
- painless diagnosis and treatment
- remimazolam
- propofol
- effect of anesthesia