Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remimazolam and Midazolam in Goal-Guided Sedation in ICU

This study aimed to compare the direct medication costs and clinical effectiveness of using remimazolam versus midazolam for goal-guided sedation therapy in the ICU patients.

This randomized controlled study was conducted in the ICU of People's Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University. Eighty adult patients admitted to the ICU and requiring sedation were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remimazolam-based sedation (study group, n=40) or midazolam-based sedation (control group, n=40). The inclusion criteria for patient selection were age 18-80 years, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and an expected ICU stay of at least 24 hours. Patients with significant liver or kidney dysfunction, neurological disorders, or contraindications to the study drugs were excluded. The target sedation depth for both groups was a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3-4, which was maintained by titrating the infusion rates of remimazolam or midazolam as needed. Vital signs, sedation scores, and respiratory parameters were closely monitored throughout the sedation period.

The time to onset of sedation, time to reach the target sedation depth, time to awakening, and length of ICU stay were all significantly shorter in the remimazolam group compared to the midazolam group (P < .05 for all). The remimazolam group had a mean time to onset of 5.2 ± 1.8 minutes versus 8.9 ± 2.4 minutes in the midazolam group. The mean time to reach the target Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3-4 was 12.6 ± 3.1 minutes in the remimazolam group compared to 18.4 ± 4.2 minutes in the midazolam group. The mean time to awakening was 10.2 ± 2.7 minutes in the remimazolam group versus 16.5 ± 3.9 minutes in the midazolam group. The remimazolam group also had a significantly shorter mean ICU length of stay of 5.1 ± 1.3 days compared to 7.8 ± 2.1 days in the midazolam group (P < .01). The remimazolam group had a significantly higher metabolic clearance rate compared to the midazolam group (P < .001). The Ramsay sedation scores and Wong-Baker FACES pain scores were also significantly lower in the remimazolam group throughout the sedation period (P < .01). There were no significant differences in heart rate between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the remimazolam group compared to the midazolam group (P < .05).

This study demonstrated that the use of remimazolam-based goal-directed sedation in the ICU setting resulted in significantly faster onset of action, quicker achievement of the target sedation depth, shorter time to awakening, and shorter ICU length of stay compared to midazolam-based sedation. The remimazolam group also had a higher metabolic clearance rate, lower sedation and pain scores, and a lower incidence of adverse events.These findings suggest that remimazolam may provide advantages over midazolam for ICU sedation, potentially leading to improved patient comfort, more efficient utilization of ICU resources, and potentially better clinical outcomes. The rapid onset, titratability, and favorable safety profile of remimazolam make it a promising sedative agent that could help optimize sedation practices in the critical care setting. Further research is warranted to fully evaluate the impact of remimazolam on long-term patient-centered outcomes and overall healthcare costs in the ICU.