Randomized trial compares three induction regimens for respiratory safety and recovery in pediatric endoscopy, indicating a preferred option.
Background/Objectives: Propofol is effective for pediatric endoscopy but can depress ventilation. We compared three induction regimens in school-aged children undergoing bidirectional gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: This single-center, assessor-blinded randomized trial allocated children aged 6–12 years (1:1:1) to propofol 3 mg/kg (P), remimazolam 0.2 mg/kg plus propofol 1 mg/kg (R1), or remimazolam 0.4 mg/kg plus propofol 1 mg/kg (R2). All groups received sufentanil and standardized propofol maintenance. Respiratory depression was a respiratory rate < 10 breaths/min or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% for >1 min. The trial was prospectively registered (ChiCTR2500096218), and analysis followed assigned groups. Results: The analysis included 120 children (40 per group). Respiratory depression occurred in 32/40 (80.0%) in P, 6/40 (15.0%) in R1, and 14/40 (35.0%) in R2 (overall p < 0.001). Compared with P, the risk difference was −65.0 percentage points for R1 (95% confidence interval [CI], −77.4 to −44.6; risk ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09–0.37) and −45.0 percentage points for R2 (95% CI, −61.0 to −23.6; risk ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27–0.66); both Holm-adjusted p values were <0.001. Mean time to eye opening was 12.7, 11.2, and 16.9 min, respectively. In the exploratory R1-versus-R2 comparison, time to eye opening was 5.75 min shorter with R1 (95% CI, 4.28–7.20). Conclusions: Both remimazolam–propofol regimens reduced monitor-defined respiratory depression compared with propofol 3 mg/kg. The 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam–propofol regimen combined this respiratory benefit with faster recovery than the 0.4 mg/kg regimen in exploratory analysis, supporting its further evaluation as an induction strategy for pediatric bidirectional endoscopy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: