BMC anesthesiologyOct 6, 2025

Comparing Remimazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Sedation After Oral Tumor Surgery with Tissue Reconstruction

Circadian Biology Weekly Brief ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗OA ↗

Updated Apr 4, 2026

Abstract

Emergence agitation incidence was comparable between remimazolam (27.6%) and dexmedetomidine (25.0%), with a risk difference of 2.6%.

Remimazolam significantly reduced the need for colloids in the post-anesthesia care unit, with 3.4% usage compared to 32.1% for dexmedetomidine.
No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes including delirium, pain scores, nausea/vomiting, and length of hospital stay.
Both agents showed equivalent efficacy in preventing emergence agitation after microvascular reconstruction surgery.
The findings suggest that remimazolam may provide enhanced hemodynamic stability, which could be beneficial for flap perfusion.

Simplified

BACKGROUND: Patients with oral tumors undergoing free-flap reconstruction require postoperative sedation to improve endotracheal tube tolerance and prevent emergence agitation. While remimazolam offers theoretical hemodynamic advantages over dexmedetomidine, clinical evidence in this context remains limited. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of both agents for sedation after microvascular reconstruction.

METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial (September 2021-November 2022), 60 patients were enrolled. Upon PACU admission, patients received continuous infusions of remimazolam (0.25 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹) or dexmedetomidine (0.4 µg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹), titrated to a Ramsay Score of 2-3. The primary outcome was PACU emergence agitation incidence (RASS ≥ + 2). Secondary outcomes included delirium, pain, nausea/vomiting, sleep quality, hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS: The final analysis included 57 patients (remimazolam n = 29, dexmedetomidine n = 28) due to consent withdrawal. Emergence agitation incidence was comparable (27.6% vs. 25.0%, p > 0.999; risk difference 2.6% [95% CI: - 21.5-26.7%]). Remimazolam significantly reduced colloid use in PACU (3.4% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.005). No significant differences in secondary outcomes (delirium, pain scores, nausea/vomiting, hospital stay).

CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam and dexmedetomidine demonstrated equivalent efficacy in preventing emergence agitation. The significantly reduced colloid requirement with remimazolam suggests enhanced hemodynamic stability, potentially benefiting flap perfusion. Combined with its rapid-offset profile, remimazolam is a viable alternative for postoperative sedation in microvascular reconstruction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, www.chictr.org.cn , ChiCTR2100048342. Registered on 05/07/2021.

Key numbers

27.6%

Emergence Agitation Incidence

Remimazolam group incidence

3.4%

Colloid Use Reduction

PACU colloid use for remimazolam

32.1%

Colloid Use in Dexmedetomidine Group

PACU colloid use for dexmedetomidine

Full Text

We can’t show the full text here under this license.

View Full Text ↗

Comparing Remimazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Sedation After Oral Tumor Surgery with Tissue Reconstruction

Abstract

Key numbers

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief

Abstract

Key numbers

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief