ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Drugs Outcomes Research and Policies
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1685312
This article is part of the Research TopicIncreasing Importance of Patients-generated Real World Data for Healthcare Policy Decisions about Medicinal Products: Volume IIIView all 12 articles
Remimazolam used for sedation during spinal anesthesia puncture provides faster sedation effect and increase recovery rate compared to midazolam: a randomized controlled trial
Provisionally accepted- 1Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- 2Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child Care Hospital, Lanzhou, China
- 3Heze Medical College, Heze, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Surgical time-out is essential for patient safety, requiring patients to remain conscious to verify their identity and surgical site. In China's high-volume operating rooms, this step is crucial to prevent errors. Spinal anesthesia often induces anxiety, making sedation necessary. An ideal sedative must provide effective anxiolysis while allowing rapid recovery. This study compares remimazolam and midazolam to meet these dual demands and assess their cardiorespiratory safety. This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared remimazolam and midazolam for sedation in patients undergoing elective ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia. Patients were assigned to receive either remimazolam (0.1 mg/kg bolus, 0.5–1.0 mg/kg/h infusion) or midazolam (0.07 mg/kg bolus, 0.05–0.1 mg/kg/h infusion). Sedation was titrated to a target Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS) score of –4. The primary outcome was the recovery time from RASS –4 to –1. Secondary outcomes included onset time, hemodynamic changes, respiratory parameters, and presences of adverse events. Of the 103 patients screened, 56 were eligible and randomized into the remimazolam (n = 28) and midazolam (n = 28) groups. The sedation onset time [1.5 (1.0, 2.0) min vs. 3.1 (2.8, 5.0) min, P < 0.001] and recovery time [3.9 (3.0, 5.2) min vs. 6.1 (3.1,10.0) min, P = 0.0016] was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group than midazolam group. Remimazolam had no significant impact on procedural time of ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia. Both groups showed significant within-group decreases in mean arterial pressure during sedation (remimazolam: from 81.5 to 75mmHg; midazolam: from 81.7 to 72.4 mmHg; P< 0.05), with no significant inter-group difference. At end of the procedure, remimazolam group had a higher respiratory rate than midazolam group (18.6±3.3 vs. 16.8±2.8) (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in heart rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure, and oxygen saturation between groups. Remimazolam was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Remimazolam demonstrated superior recovery in sedation depth, with a significantly shorter time to regain consciousness (RASS –4 to –1), compared with midazolam in patients undergoing ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia. No significant differences in circulatory or respiratory parameters were observed between groups, though the study may lack power to detect minor safety effects.
Keywords: Remimazolam, Midazolam, Sedative agents, Hemodynamic stability, recovery time
Received: 13 Aug 2025; Accepted: 07 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Sun, Tan, Liang, Zhang and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Xiaoqiang Li, 39006900@qq.com
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.