Exploring the Utility of remimazolam in cesarean sections under general anesthesia: A preliminary retrospective analysis and Implications for future study

Eunji Ko; Sung Uk Choi; Jaehee Lee; Eun-Saem Choi; Yoon Sun Park

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28485

Exploring the Utility of remimazolam in cesarean sections under general anesthesia: A preliminary retrospective analysis and Implications for future study

Heliyon. 2024 Mar 29;10(7):e28485. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28485. eCollection 2024 Apr 15.

Authors

Eunji Ko¹, Sung Uk Choi¹, Jaehee Lee¹, Eun-Saem Choi², Yoon Sun Park¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
² Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

Abstract

Background: Remimazolam has recently been introduced as a maintenance agent for general anesthesia. However, the effect of remimazolam on peripartum prognosis has not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol for uterotonic drugs following cesarean section.

Methods: The electronic medical records of 51 adult women who underwent elective cesarean sections by single obstetrician under general anesthesia were collected. Participants were categorized into two groups: the propofol group and the remimazolam group. General anesthesia was maintained by continuous infusion of propofol or remimazolam after delivery. The number of uterotonic drugs administered during the cesarean section, the estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS) after delivery were assessed.

Results: Of the 51 patients included in the study, 35 were in the propofol group and 16 in the remimazolam group. In the remimazolam group, five patients (31.3%, 5/16) received more uterotonics than the standard regimen. Conversely, in the propofol group, 19 patients (54.3%, 19/35) were injected with more uterotonics than the standard regimen. Logistic regression analysis showed that abnormal positioning of the placenta (P = 0.079) and not using remimazolam (P = 0.100) were the most relevant factors associated with the increased use of uterotonics. There was no significant difference in EBL between the two groups. The use of remimazolam was clinically relevant with a shorter LOS (P = 0.059).

Conclusions: The use of remimazolam as a maintenance agent did not result in significantly higher use of intrapartum uterotonics compared to the use of propofol. These results cannot exclude all adverse effects of remimazolam during cesarean delivery. Further randomized controlled trials must be conducted to obtain high-quality evidence.

Keywords: Cesarean section; Obstetrical anesthesia; Postpartum hemorrhage; Remimazolam; Sevoflurane; Uterine contraction; Uterine inertia.