
==== Front
Can J Anaesth
Can J Anaesth
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia
0832-610X
1496-8975
Springer International Publishing Cham

38671251
2762
10.1007/s12630-024-02762-w
Reports of Original Investigations
Effective bolus dose of remimazolam for i-gel® insertion in nonparalyzed patients: a dose-finding study
Dose efficace en bolus de remimazolam pour l’insertion de l’i-gel® chez la patientèle non paralysée : une étude de détermination de doseCho Eunah MD, PhD 1
Roh Yun Ho PhD 2
Moon Jisu PhD 2
Kim Yangjin MD 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2641-0070
Shin Seokyung MD, PhD skshin@yuhs.ac

4
1 grid.264381.a 0000 0001 2181 989X Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2 https://ror.org/01wjejq96 grid.15444.30 0000 0004 0470 5454 Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3 grid.15444.30 0000 0004 0470 5454 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4 grid.15444.30 0000 0004 0470 5454 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722 Republic of Korea
26 4 2024
26 4 2024
2024
71 9 12511260
5 7 2023
19 2 2024
2 3 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Purpose

Remimazolam is a recently developed ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine used for anesthesia induction and maintenance. Nevertheless, the effective bolus dose of remimazolam for i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, Berkshire, UK) insertion without the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has not been well established.

Methods

This study included 25 adult patients scheduled for surgery under general anesthesia who were eligible for i-gel use. Anesthesia was induced with predetermined bolus doses of remimazolam, starting at 0.3 mg·kg−1 for the first patient, without the use of NMBAs. All patients concurrently received remifentanil using target-controlled infusion (TCI) at a fixed effect-site concentration (Ce) of 3.0 ng·mL−1. Insertion of the i-gel was attempted 90 sec after remimazolam administration, and insertion conditions were assessed. Subsequent doses of remimazolam were decreased or increased by 0.05 mg·kg−1, depending on the success or failure of i-gel insertion.

Results

The mean (standard deviation) 50% effective dose (ED50) of a remimazolam bolus for successful i-gel insertion as determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method was 0.100 (0.027) mg·kg−1. The ED50 and ED95 estimated by isotonic regression were 0.111 (83% confidence interval [CI], 0.096 to 0.131) mg·kg−1 and 0.182 (95% CI, 0.144 to 0.195) mg·kg−1, respectively. None of the patients required treatment for hypotension or bradycardia during anesthesia induction.

Conclusion

Based on the ED95 of remimazolam bolus dose determined in our study, we recommend using 0.182 mg·kg−1 of remimazolam in combination with remifentanil TCI at a Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1 for successful i-gel insertion without NMBAs in adult patients. This regimen seems effective with a low risk of hemodynamic instability during anesthesia induction.

Study registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05298228); first submitted 6 March 2022.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-024-02762-w.

Résumé

Objectif

Le remimazolam est une benzodiazépine à action ultra-courte récemment mise au point et utilisée pour l’induction et le maintien de l’anesthésie. Toutefois, la dose efficace en bolus de remimazolam pour l’insertion de l’i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, Berkshire, Royaume-Uni) sans utiliser de bloqueurs neuromusculaires (BNM) n’a pas été bien établie.

Méthode

Cette étude a inclus 25 adultes devant bénéficier d’une intervention chirurgicale sous anesthésie générale qui étaient éligibles à l’utilisation d’un i-gel. L’anesthésie a été induite avec des doses prédéterminées en bolus de remimazolam, à partir de 0,3 mg·kg−1 pour la première personne, sans utiliser de BNM. Toutes les personnes anesthésiées ont reçu en parallèle du rémifentanil en perfusion à objectif de concentration à une concentration au site effecteur (Ce) de 3,0 ng·mL−1. L’insertion de l’i-gel a été tentée 90 secondes après l’administration de remimazolam, et les conditions d’insertion ont été évaluées. Les doses subséquentes de remimazolam ont été diminuées ou augmentées de 0,05 mg·kg−1, en fonction du succès ou de l’échec de l’insertion de l’i-gel.

Résultats

La dose efficace moyenne (écart type) de 50 % (DE50) d’un bolus de remimazolam pour une insertion réussie de l’i-gel, telle que déterminée par la méthode « up-and-down » de Dixon modifiée, était de 0,100 (0,027) mg·kg−1. Les DE50 et DE95 estimées par régression isotonique étaient de 0,111 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 83 %, 0,096 à 0,131) mg·kg−1 et 0,182 (IC 95 %, 0,144 à 0,195) mg·kg−1, respectivement. Aucun·e patient·e n’a eu besoin de traitement pour une hypotension ou une bradycardie pendant l’induction de l’anesthésie.

Conclusion

D’après la DE95 de la dose de remimazolam en bolus déterminée dans notre étude, nous recommandons d’utiliser 0,182 mg·kg−1 de remimazolam en association avec une perfusion à objectif de concentration de rémifentanil à une Ce de 3,0 ng·mL−1 pour réussir l’insertion de l’i-gel sans BNM chez la patientèle adulte. Ce schéma semble efficace avec un faible risque d’instabilité hémodynamique lors de l’induction de l’anesthésie.

Enregistrement de l’étude

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05298228); première soumission le 6 mars 2022.

Keywords

bolus
i-gel®
nonparalyzed
remimazolam
remifentanil
supraglottic airway device
Hana Pharm Co., Ltd.issue-copyright-statement© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2024
==== Body
pmcSince their introduction, supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) have greatly evolved and are widely used in general anesthesia and emergency situations.1–3 Among the various SGAs, the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, Berkshire, UK) is made of a thermoplastic elastomer with a unique noninflatable cuff and has a high success rate of insertion.1,4,5 To ensure successful insertion of the i-gel, it is imperative to suppress coughing, gagging, and straining by maintaining an appropriate depth of anesthesia and relaxing the jaw muscles.6,7 This is especially true in nonparalyzed patients where failure to maintain sufficient anesthesia depth can result in airway complications.8–11

The most commonly used hypnotic for SGA insertion without neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) is propofol, which coincidentally became widely available around the time of the introduction of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA®; Teleflex, Athlone, Co. Westmeath, Ireland). While propofol alone has been proven effective for SGA insertion,12,13 combining opioids with propofol can help suppress patient responses to stimulation and mitigate the hemodynamic effects often associated with high doses of hypnotic agents.14

Remimazolam is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine known for its rapid onset of action, short context-sensitive half-life, and fast recovery time.15,16 While it has been proven effective for anesthesia induction and maintenance,17 remimazolam primarily acts as a sedative without analgesic effects and therefore benefits from the coadministration of opioids during painful procedures.18 Given the potential for hemodynamic disturbances caused by hypnotics and opioids, it is important to establish a safe and effective dose of each component that ensures successful SGA insertion while maintaining hemodynamic stability.14 Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the bolus dose of remimazolam that facilitates i-gel insertion without the use of NMBAs when combined with a fixed effect-site concentration (Ce) of 3.0 ng·mL−1 with remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Materials and Methods

Ethics

Ethical approval for this study (protocol number 4-2021-1706) was provided by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Republic of Korea (Chairperson, Prof. Jin Seok Kim) on 28 January 2022 and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05298228; first submitted 6 March 2022). After providing detailed information of the study, written informed consent was obtained from the participants. This study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital (Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea) in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Patients

Patients aged 19 yr and older, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia, were screened consecutively and were enrolled from 16 May 2022 to 4 April 2023. Patients all had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status of I–III and were eligible for i-gel insertion. Patients meeting the following criteria were excluded from the study: refusal to participate, anticipated difficulty in face mask ventilation based on history or anatomical structure, upper respiratory tract infection, airway-related diseases such as asthma or pneumonia, risk of gastroesophageal reflux, known allergies to benzodiazepines, impaired liver or kidney function, pregnancy or breastfeeding, obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg·m−2), or a history of substance abuse.

Anesthesia technique

No premedication was administered to the patients. Upon entering the operating room, noninvasive blood pressure, electrocardiography, pulse oximetry, and electroencephalography (SedLine®; Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) monitors were applied. Remimazolam (Byfavo®; Hana Pharm Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) was diluted with normal saline and prepared in a 50-mL syringe at a concentration of 1 mg·mL−1. Remifentanil (Ultian; Hanlim Pharm Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) infusion was set up as TCI using a total intravenous anesthesia pump according to the Minto model.19

After preoxygenation with 100% oxygen via face mask for three minutes, predetermined doses of remimazolam were administered as a bolus over 20–30 sec using the syringe pump. Simultaneously, remifentanil was continuously infused at a target Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1. Ninety seconds after the predetermined bolus dose of remimazolam was fully administered, a single experienced anesthesiologist (S. S.) blinded to the dosage of the study drug checked for loss of consciousness (LOC) by shaking the patient’s shoulders and attempted to insert the i-gel without any assistance. The size of the i-gel was chosen based on the patient’s weight as recommended by the manufacturer. The lubricated i-gel was gently inserted into the patient’s mouth, sliding it down the hard palate until resistance was felt.4 The success of i-gel insertion was defined by detection of a normal square-shaped capnography waveform upon manual ventilation and observation of symmetric movements of the patient’s chest wall. If insertion failed because of LOC not being reached, significant patient resistance, improper positioning of the i-gel, or laryngospasm, the patient was given an additional bolus of 0.1 mg·kg−1 remimazolam. If another attempt at i-gel insertion failed, endotracheal intubation was performed with an intubating dose of an NMBA. General anesthesia was maintained with a standard infusion dose of remimazolam at 1–2 mg·kg−1·hr−1 combined with a remifentanil infusion targeted to a Ce of 1.0–4.0 ng·mL−1.

The bolus dose of remimazolam was predetermined by the Dixon’s up-and-down method. The starting dose was set at 0.3 mg·kg−1 based on a previous study suggesting an optimal dose of 0.25–0.33 mg·kg−1 for LOC in patients under 40 yr of age.20 If i-gel insertion was successful on the first attempt, the subsequent patient received a decreased bolus dose of remimazolam by 0.05 mg·kg−1. Conversely, if insertion failed, the following patient received a bolus dose increased by 0.05 mg·kg−1.

Outcomes assessment

The adequacy of i-gel insertion was determined as either a “success” or “failure.” Additionally, insertion conditions were assessed using a six-category scale (Electronic Supplementary Material [ESM] eTable).7,21 A total score for insertion conditions was calculated by adding the points assigned to categories for swallowing, coughing or gagging, head or body movements, and laryngospasm. A score of 4 points indicates optimal conditions for SGA insertion, while a score of 12 points indicates the poorest conditions for insertion.

Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and patient state index (PSI) were recorded before anesthetic induction as baseline values, and immediately before and after and ten minutes after i-gel insertion. Hypotension was defined as a MAP < 60 mm Hg and was treated with 4 mg of ephedrine when sustained for more than three minutes. Bradycardia was defined as a HR < 50 min−1 and was treated with ephedrine or atropine at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist.

Postoperative hoarseness, coughing, and sore throat were assessed 30 min after the patient’s arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative day (POD) 1. Hoarseness was graded on a four-point scale as 0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), or 3 (severe). Cough and sore throat were also graded on a four-point scale as 0 (none), 1 (milder than the common cold), 2 (similar to the common cold), or 3 (worse than the common cold).22

Statistical analysis

The primary goal of this study was to determine the effective bolus dose of remimazolam associated with a 50% (50% effective dose, ED50) and 95% (ED95) rate of successful i-gel insertion in nonparalyzed adult patients when combined with a remifentanil TCI of 3.0 ng·mL−1. We estimated the ED50 of a remimazolam bolus to facilitate i-gel insertion using the Dixon’s up-and-down method. The Dixon’s up-and-down analysis method requires at least six pairs of success/failure in the same direction and at least 20 participants.23–25 We therefore enrolled 25 patients in this study. To further specify the effective dose of remimazolam, we used isotonic regression using the pooled adjacent violators algorithm (PAVA) to determine ED50 and ED95 estimates along with confidence intervals (CIs) derived by bootstrapping.

Variables are presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]) for normally distributed continuous data, median [interquartile range (IQR)] for nonparametric data, and n (%) for categorical data. We compared baseline patient characteristics between patients in whom i-gel insertion was a “success” or “failure.” We used the two-sample t test to compare normally distributed continuous data. For comparison of nonparametric data, we used the Wilcoxon rank sum test. We compared categorical data using the Chi square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. For comparisons of hemodynamic data including MAP, HR, and PSI between the groups over time, we used a linear mixed model. To address the correlation between the time points, we incorporated an auto-correlation structure with lag one in the model. We conducted post hoc analyses with a Bonferroni correction to compare baseline with each time point (before i-gel insertion, after i-gel insertion, and ten minutes after i-gel insertion). We considered a Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.05 as being statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Figure 1 shows the study flow diagram. Among 30 patients screened for eligibility, three were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. After enrolment, one patient was further excluded because of an error in drug preparation and one patient because of inappropriate screening. The remaining 25 patients completed the study protocol and were included in the final analysis. Patient characteristics of the participants according to failure or success of i-gel insertion on first attempt are presented in Table 1. While no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the “fail” and “success” groups, it was noted that patients in the success group tended to be slightly older and shorter, and included a higher proportion of females.Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study

Table 1 Patient baseline characteristics

	Fail
N = 11	Success
N = 14	P value	
Age (yr), median [IQR]	39 [27–51]	53 [28–57]	0.57	
Sex, n/total N (%)			0.12	
 Male	7/11 (64%)	4/14 (29%)		
 Female	4/11 (36%)	10/14 (71%)		
Height (cm), median [IQR]	166 [162–171]	163 [158–177]	0.53	
Weight (kg), mean (SD)	69 (14)	71 (13)	0.68	
BMI (kg·m−2), mean (SD)	24.5 (3.2)	25.7 (2.9)	0.35	
ASA PS, n/total N (%)			 > 0.99	
 I	8/11 (73%)	10/14 (71%)		
 II	3/11 (27%)	4/14 (29%)		
“Fail” denotes failed i-gel® insertion at first attempt whereas “success” denotes successful i-gel insertion at first attempt

ASA PS = American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status; BMI = body mass index; IQR = interquartile range; SD = standard deviation

The sequence of either the success or failure of i-gel insertion at first attempt in the 25 consecutive patients is shown in Fig. 2. Of the 11 patients in which i-gel insertion failed, four patients who received 0.05 mg·kg−1 and one patient who received 0.1 mg·kg−1 failed to reach LOC after 90 sec of remimazolam bolus dose administration. The mean (SD) ED50, estimated from seven crossover pairs using the Dixon’s up-and-down method, was 0.100 (0.027) mg·kg−1 (Table 2). Figure 3 illustrates the PAVA-adjusted probability of successful i-gel insertion for each dose level. The ED50 and ED95 estimates calculated by isotonic regression with PAVA were 0.111 mg·kg−1 (83% CI, 0.096 to 0.131) and 0.182 mg·kg−1 (95% CI, 0.144 to 0.195), respectively (Table 2). We performed a simulation to evaluate the coverage of the CI for ED95 and the results are shown in the ESM eAppendix. Among the 100 simulation trials, the estimated coverage of the 95% CI was 72%.Fig. 2 Assessment of the bolus dose of remimazolam required for successful i-gel® insertion without neuromuscular blocking agents in adults using the Dixon’s up-and-down method. The individual responses to i-gel insertion in 25 consecutive patients is shown with solid circles (●) indicating successful i-gel insertion and open circles (○) indicating failed insertion. The mean (standard deviation) 50% effective dose of a remimazolam bolus dose, calculated from the midpoints of pairs of “success” and “failure,” was 0.100 (0.027) mg·kg−1.

Table 2 Dose of remimazolam needed for i-gel® insertion in nonparalyzed adults

Dixon's up-and-down method*	
 ED50 of remimazolam (mg·kg−1)	0.100 (0.027)	
lsotonic regression method†	
 ED50 of remimazolam (mg·kg−1)	0.111 (0.096 to 0.131)	
 ED95 of remimazolam (mg·kg−1)	0.182 (0.144 to 0.195)	
*Data from the modified Dixon's up-and-down method are presented as mean (standard deviation)

†Data from the isotonic regression with the pooled adjacent violators algorithm are presented as the ED50 (83% confidence interval [CI]) and ED95 (95% CI, estimated coverage of 72%)

Fig. 3 Probability of successful i-gel® insertion estimated with the pooled adjacent violators algorithm. The ED50 of remimazolam bolus dose for i-gel insertion estimated by isotonic regression was 0.111 mg·kg−1 (83% confidence interval [CI], 0.096 to 0.131). The ED95 of remimazolam dose bolus was estimated to be 0.182 mg·kg−1 (95% CI, 0.144 to 0.195).

ED50 = 50% effective dose; ED95 = 95% effective dose

The trends of MAP, HR, and PSI over time at four time-points are illustrated in Fig. 4. Although both MAP and HR were found to decrease over time and at all time-points compared with baseline, none of the patients in this study required treatment for the correction of hypotension or bradycardia. Similarly, PSI also decreased over time (P < 0.001) and at all time- points compared with baseline (P < 0.001 for all time-points) but the mean (SD) values immediately before and after i-gel insertion remained relatively higher than the recommended range of PSI for general anesthesia at 62 (11) and 52 (14), respectively.Fig. 4 Changes in (A) mean arterial pressure, (B) heart rate, and (C) patient state index during the study period. Baseline, before anesthesia induction; before i-gel®, immediately before i-gel insertion; after i-gel, immediately after i-gel insertion; ten minutes after i-gel, ten minutes after i-gel insertion. *Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.05 compared with the baseline value.

The scores for i-gel insertion conditions were lower in patients with successful i-gel insertion compared with those with failed insertion (P < 0.001). Among the success group, insertion conditions were suboptimal in seven patients who showed either slight swallowing movements, slight head or body movements, or both. Nevertheless, none of the patients in the success group presented with coughing, gagging, or laryngospasm (Table 3). No blood-tinged i-gel devices or oropharyngeal trauma were observed, and none of the patients required endotracheal intubation.Table 3 Insertion conditions of the i-gel® and the incidence of hoarseness, cough, and sore throat at the postanesthetic care unit and on postoperative day 1

Variable	Fail
N = 11	Success
N = 14	P value	
Resistance to mouth opening	2.4 (0.5)	1.0 (0.0)	< 0.001	
Resistance to insertion	2.7 (0.5)	1.0 (0.0)	< 0.001	
Insertion condition score	9.9 (0.9)	4.6 (0.8)	< 0.001	
 Swallowing	2.9 (0.3)	1.4 (0.5)	< 0.001	
 Coughing and gagging	2.5 (0.5)	1.0 (0.0)	< 0.001	
 Head or body movement	2.8 (0.4)	1.1 (0.4)	< 0.001	
 Laryngospasm	1.7 (0.6)	1.0 (0.0)	0.004	
Hoarseness				
 PACU, 0/1/2	8/3/0 (73%/27%/0%)	10/4/0 (71%/29%/0%)	> 0.99	
 POD 1, 0/1/2	10/0/1 (91%/0%/9%)	12/1/1 (86%/7%/7%)	> 0.99	
Cough				
 PACU, 0/1/2	11/0/0 (100%/0%/0%)	14/0/0 (100%/0%/0%)	N/A	
 POD 1, 0/1/2	10/1/0 (91%/9%/0%)	14/0/0 (100%/0%/0%)	0.44	
Sore throat				
 PACU, 0/1/2	11/0/0 (100%/0%/0%)	11/3/0 (79%/21%/0%)	0.23	
 POD 1, 0/1/2	10/1/0 (91%/9%/0%)	7/5/2 (50%/36%/14%)	0.10	
Data are shown as mean (standard deviation) or n (%)

Variables were scored as follows: resistance to mouth opening: nil = 1, significant = 2, undue force required = 3; resistance to insertion: nil = 1, significant = 2, undue force required = 3; swallowing: nil = 1, slight = 2, gross = 3; coughing and gagging: nil = 1, slight = 2, gross = 3; head or body movement: nil = 1, slight = 2, gross = 3; laryngospasm: nil = 1, partial = 2, total = 3; the insertion condition score was calculated by adding the points for swallowing, coughing and gagging, head or body movement, and laryngospasm (4 being the optimal condition, 12 being the poorest condition).

Hoarseness was graded as 0 (no hoarseness at all), 1 (mild hoarseness), 2 (moderate hoarseness), or 3 (severe hoarseness). Cough and sore throat were graded as 0 (no coughing or sore throat), 1 (milder than the common cold), 2 (similar to the common cold), or 3 (worse than the common cold).

N/A = not applicable; PACU = postanesthesia care unit; POD = postoperative day

Discussion

In this study using Dixon’s up-and-down method, we found the estimated mean (SD) ED50 of a remimazolam bolus for successful i-gel insertion when combined with a commonly used Ce of remifentanil in nonparalyzed adults to be 0.100 (0.027) mg·kg−1. Further, the ED50 and ED95 estimated by isotonic regression were 0.111 mg·kg−1 (83% CI, 0.096 to 0.131) and 0.182 mg·kg−1 (95% CI, 0.144 to 0.195), respectively. Coadministration of remimazolam at these specified dosages along with a remifentanil TCI at 3.0 ng·mL−1 not only facilitated i-gel insertion but also ensured hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction.

The present findings align closely with a recent study by Chae et al.,20 reporting an ED50 of 0.11 mg·kg−1 and ED95 of 0.19 mg·kg−1 for achieving LOC with bolus doses of remimazolam. It is important to note that these doses are most likely insufficient for i-gel insertion when used alone. Nevertheless, when combined with a remifentanil infusion at an Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1, we observed a synergistic effect that seems to have lowered the required dose of remimazolam.2,26 The addition of remifentanil during SGA insertion has been shown to reduce the dose requirements of propofol in previous studies. Zaballos et al.14 reported a reduction of up to 60% in propofol requirements for LMA-Supreme insertion by adding remifentanil at a Ce of 5 ng·mL−1. Similarly, Park et al.27 found that remifentanil halved the 50% effective concentration (EC50) of propofol for LMA insertion in children. Remifentanil infusion is one of the most common methods of analgesic administration during anesthesia induction and maintenance, which makes our study design closely reflective of real-world anesthesia practice.

In our initial experience with remimazolam, we found it challenging to insert an SGA using remimazolam as a standalone anesthetic, either as an infusion or bolus. We therefore opted to incorporate remifentanil along with remimazolam. The target Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1 for remifentanil was based on a previous report suggesting an EC50 of 3.04 ng·mL−1 for LMA insertion.28 By combining remifentanil TCI to mitigate response to nociceptive stimuli, we found that a relatively low dose of remimazolam was sufficient for facilitating i-gel insertion.

Currently, there are only two studies2,29 that have investigated the dose of remimazolam for i-gel insertion without the use of NMBAs. Interestingly, both studies reported relatively higher doses of remimazolam compared with our study. In a study that was conducted under similar settings as our present study, the reported mean (SD) ED50 of a remimazolam bolus was 0.280 (0.048) mg·kg−1,2 which is more than double that of our findings. This significant difference is noteworthy, especially considering that the target Ce for remifentanil was identical at 3.0 ng·mL−1. The other study investigated the infusion rate of remimazolam for i-gel insertion with the coadministration of fentanyl.29 The authors used 1 µg·kg−1 of fentanyl and attempted to insert the i-gel 2.5 min after the remimazolam infusion and found the ED50 and ED95 to be 8.8 mg·kg·hr−1 and 10.7 mg·kg·hr−1, respectively. While it is challenging to directly compare these results to our study because of the different method of remimazolam administration, a rough conversion of total remimazolam dose from the previous study corresponds to approximately 0.37 mg·kg−1 and 0.45 mg·kg−1 for the ED50 and ED95, respectively, which are notably higher than our findings. One important distinction between our study and the previous two studies lies in the definition of successful i-gel insertion. The two previous studies defined “success” as no resistance to mouth opening (i.e., fully relaxed jaw) and no coughing or body movements. In contrast, we allowed for slightly suboptimal conditions, such as slight swallowing or body movements, as long as the patient remained fully unconscious, the i-gel was properly inserted, and lung ventilation was confirmed. We believe that, in clinical practice, it is realistic to allow for slight movements that do not hinder SGA insertion unless excessive force is required, which may result in oropharyngeal trauma for the patient. If the exact same definitions of “success” for i-gel insertion had been used, our study would have yielded higher bolus doses closer to the results of the previous studies.

Another difference between the previous studies and our study is the time interval from remimazolam administration to i-gel insertion. The previous studies allowed a time interval of 150 sec, whereas we used a shorter interval of 90 sec in our study. The decision to use the 90-sec interval was based on the time to LOC with remimazolam reported in previous studies, which is approximately 50 sec.2,20 We also considered the time to peak effect of remifentanil, which is reported to be between 1.2 and 1.6 min according to the Minto model.19 The i-gel has a unique gel-like consistency and structural design that resembles the larynx, resulting in minimal upper airway irritation. Previous reports have shown that the i-gel requires less propofol30 and remifentanil4 for successful insertion compared with the LMA. Based on this knowledge, we hypothesized that once the Ce of remifentanil is reached at the state of LOC, the i-gel can be easily inserted without having to wait for more than 90 sec after the bolus dose of remimazolam is fully administered. It should, however, be noted that we found a bolus dose of 0.05 mg·kg−1 remimazolam to be insufficient in achieving LOC within 90 sec, even when coadministered with remifentanil in all four patients that received this dosage. In addition, although our 90-sec time interval was carefully chosen based on previous evidence, it should be kept in mind that this may not always be sufficient for a full effect of remifentanil to be reached because of the limitations of commercialized pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models and the inevitable biological variability between individuals.

The main advantage of a lower dose of remimazolam and a shorter time interval of our study was the improved hemodynamic stability. Compared with our study where none of the patients required treatment for hypotension, the two previous dose-finding studies reported incidences of hypotension of 12%2 and 46%,29 respectively. It is always desirable to use the minimally effective dose of hypnotics to avoid unwanted side effects and for cost-effectiveness, and our study shows that a relatively lower bolus dose of remimazolam can facilitate i-gel insertion with greater hemodynamic stability when combined with remifentanil TCI of 3.0 ng·mL−1. These findings may be of more significance in vulnerable patients such as the elderly or those with cardiovascular comorbidities. Further studies investigating different remimazolam bolus doses at variable time intervals and Ce of remifentanil will be able to provide useful information for the application of remimazolam in general anesthesia.

Our study has several limitations. First, the study population consisted mainly of young and healthy adults with BMIs of 30 kg·m−2 or lower. It is important to recognize that dosage requirements for remimazolam are likely to differ for the elderly20,31 and individuals who are obese.32 Given that these patient subpopulations constitute a significant proportion of the global population, future studies are warranted to offer practical insights into the application of remimazolam protocols in a wider range of BMI groups. Second, we used TCI for remifentanil administration with a fixed Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1 throughout the study. This may limit the generalizability of our protocol in clinical settings where TCI is not the preferred method or is unavailable, and our findings do not offer an alternative dosage option for a different Ce. Further research is needed to investigate how various modes of remifentanil administration may impact the required dosage of remimazolam for SGA insertion. Third, our study focused specifically on the i-gel insertion and therefore our results may not be applicable to other commonly used SGAs. Each SGA has its own unique properties, and drug requirements have been reported to be different between different SGAs.4,30,33 Fourth, although all patients were checked for LOC before attempting to insert the i-gel, we did not record the exact time to LOC. Furthermore, the method we employed to assess LOC in our study (shaking the patient’s shoulders) is subject to issues of objectivity and reproducibility. Incorporating data relevant to LOC that is obtained through objective monitoring methods in future studies would provide further insights into the effects of remifentanil coadministration with remimazolam. Finally, our study was designed with the Dixon’s up-and-down method aimed at targeting ED50, but we estimated extreme percentile ED95. Given that data are primarily collected around ED50 in the up-and-down method, estimates of ED95 may be unreliable, as seen with the estimated coverage of 72%.34,35 Further research is warranted to estimate higher target percentiles using alternative designs such as a biased coin design,25 developed for targets other than median.

In conclusion, the ED50 of the bolus dose of remimazolam required for i-gel insertion with the coadministration of remifentanil TCI at a Ce of 3.0 ng·mL−1 in nonparalyzed healthy adults was 0.100 (0.027) mg·kg−1. Considering the estimated ED95, which was 0.182 mg·kg−1 (95% CI, 0.144 to 0.195), we suggest using a remimazolam bolus dosage of 0.182 mg·kg−1 in combination with remifentanil when inserting the i-gel without NMBAs. This regimen seems effective and safe in terms of hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing general anesthesia using the i-gel.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 112 kb)

Author contributions

Eunah Cho contributed to conception and design, interpretation of data, and drafting and revising the article. Yun Ho Roh and Jisu Moon contributed to analysis and interpretation of data, and revising the article. Yangjin Kim contributed to the acquisition of data and drafting the article. Seokyung Shin contributed to conception and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, and drafting and revising the article.

Disclosures

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding statement

This research was supported by Hana Pharm Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea. None of the authors have a personal financial interest in this research. The sponsor was not involved in data analysis or interpretation.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Stephan K. W. Schwarz, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Cho SA Sung TY Cho CK Jee YS Kang PS Optimal propofol dosage for i-gel® insertion in healthy paralyzed patients Korean J Anesthesiol 2018 71 22 29 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.1.22 29441171
Cho SA, Sung TY, Cho CK, Jee YS, Kang PS. Optimal propofol dosage for i-gel® insertion in healthy paralyzed patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018; 71: 22–9. 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.1.2229441171
2. Oh J Park SY Lee GY Park JH Joe HB Effective dose of remimazolam co-administered with remifentanil to facilitate i-gel® insertion without neuromuscular blocking agents: an up-and-down sequential allocation trial BMC Anesthesiol 2023 23 81 10.1186/s12871-023-02041-z 36927413
Oh J, Park SY, Lee GY, Park JH, Joe HB. Effective dose of remimazolam co-administered with remifentanil to facilitate i-gel® insertion without neuromuscular blocking agents: an up-and-down sequential allocation trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2023; 23: 81. 10.1186/s12871-023-02041-z36927413
3. El-Boghdadly K Bailey CR Wiles MD Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review Anaesthesia 2016 71 706 717 10.1111/anae.13438 27158989
El-Boghdadly K, Bailey CR, Wiles MD. Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 706–17. 10.1111/anae.1343827158989
4. Choi JB Kwak HJ Lee KC Lee SR Lee SY Kim JY Comparison of remifentanil EC50 for facilitating i-gel® and laryngeal mask airway insertion with propofol anesthesia J Anesth 2016 30 377 383 10.1007/s00540-015-2133-6 26758073
Choi JB, Kwak HJ, Lee KC, Lee SR, Lee SY, Kim JY. Comparison of remifentanil EC50 for facilitating i-gel® and laryngeal mask airway insertion with propofol anesthesia. J Anesth 2016; 30: 377–83. 10.1007/s00540-015-2133-626758073
5. Das A Majumdar S Mukherjee A i-gel™ in ambulatory surgery: a comparison with LMA-ProSeal™ in paralyzed anaesthetized patients J Clin Diagn Res 2014 8 80 84 10.7860/jcdr/2014/7890.4113 24783088
Das A, Majumdar S, Mukherjee A, et al. i-gel™ in ambulatory surgery: a comparison with LMA-ProSeal™ in paralyzed anaesthetized patients. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: 80–4. 10.7860/jcdr/2014/7890.411324783088
6. Braun U Fritz U The laryngeal mask as an instrument [German] Anaesthesist 1994 43 129 142 10.1007/s001010050042 8141440
Braun U, Fritz U. The laryngeal mask as an instrument [German]. Anaesthesist 1994; 43: 129–42. 10.1007/s0010100500428141440
7. Hui JK Critchley LA Karmakar MK Lam PK Co-administration of alfentanil-propofol improves laryngeal mask airway insertion compared to fentanyl-propofol Can J Anesth 2002 49 508 512 10.1007/bf03017932 11983670
Hui JK, Critchley LA, Karmakar MK, Lam PK. Co-administration of alfentanil-propofol improves laryngeal mask airway insertion compared to fentanyl-propofol. Can J Anesth 2002; 49: 508–12. 10.1007/bf0301793211983670
8. Lee JJ Laryngeal mask and trauma to uvula Anaesthesia 1989 44 1014 1015 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09242.x 2619011
Lee JJ. Laryngeal mask and trauma to uvula. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 1014–5. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09242.x2619011
9. Dasey N Mansour N Coughing and laryngospasm with the laryngeal mask Anaesthesia 1989 44 865 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09120.x 2521122
Dasey N, Mansour N. Coughing and laryngospasm with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 865. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09120.x2521122
10. Arigliani M Dolcemascolo V Passone E Vergine M Cogo P Uvular trauma after laryngeal mask airway use J Pediatr 2016 176 217 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.05.056 27301569
Arigliani M, Dolcemascolo V, Passone E, Vergine M, Cogo P. Uvular trauma after laryngeal mask airway use. J Pediatr 2016; 176: 217. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.05.05627301569
11. Brodrick PM Webster NR Nunn JF The laryngeal mask airway. A study of 100 patients during spontaneous breathing Anaesthesia 1989 44 238 241 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb11233.x 2650575
Brodrick PM, Webster NR, Nunn JF. The laryngeal mask airway. A study of 100 patients during spontaneous breathing. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 238–41. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb11233.x2650575
12. Scanlon P Carey M Power M Kirby F Patient response to laryngeal mask insertion after induction of anaesthesia with propofol or thiopentone Can J Anesth 1993 40 816 818 10.1007/BF03009250 8403174
Scanlon P, Carey M, Power M, Kirby F. Patient response to laryngeal mask insertion after induction of anaesthesia with propofol or thiopentone. Can J Anesth 1993; 40: 816–8. 10.1007/BF030092508403174
13. Erhan E Ugur G Gunusen I Alper I Ozyar B Propofol—not thiopental or etomidate—with remifentanil provides adequate intubating conditions in the absence of neuromuscular blockade Can J Anesth 2003 50 108 115 10.1007/BF03017840 12560298
Erhan E, Ugur G, Gunusen I, Alper I, Ozyar B. Propofol—not thiopental or etomidate—with remifentanil provides adequate intubating conditions in the absence of neuromuscular blockade. Can J Anesth 2003; 50: 108–15. 10.1007/BF0301784012560298
14. Zaballos M Bastida E Agustí S Portas M Jiménez C López-Gil M Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial BMC Anesthesiol 2015 15 131 10.1186/s12871-015-0115-8 26438179
Zaballos M, Bastida E, Agustí S, Portas M, Jiménez C, López-Gil M. Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2015; 15: 131. 10.1186/s12871-015-0115-826438179
15. Sneyd JR Gambus PL Rigby-Jones AE Current status of perioperative hypnotics, role of benzodiazepines, and the case for remimazolam: a narrative review Br J Anaesth 2021 127 41 55 10.1016/j.bja.2021.03.028 33965206
Sneyd JR, Gambus PL, Rigby-Jones AE. Current status of perioperative hypnotics, role of benzodiazepines, and the case for remimazolam: a narrative review. Br J Anaesth 2021; 127: 41–55. 10.1016/j.bja.2021.03.02833965206
16. Schnider T Minto C Context sensitive decrement times of remimazolam Anesth Analg 2013 117 285 10.1213/ane.0b013e3182942954 23788743
Schnider T, Minto C. Context sensitive decrement times of remimazolam. Anesth Analg 2013; 117: 285. 10.1213/ane.0b013e318294295423788743
17. Hu Q Liu X Wen C Li D Lei X Remimazolam: an updated review of a new sedative and anaesthetic Drug Des Devel Ther 2022 16 3957 3974 10.2147/dddt.s384155 36411859
Hu Q, Liu X, Wen C, Li D, Lei X. Remimazolam: an updated review of a new sedative and anaesthetic. Drug Des Devel Ther 2022; 16: 3957–74. 10.2147/dddt.s38415536411859
18. Kim KM Remimazolam: pharmacological characteristics and clinical applications in anesthesiology Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2022 17 1 11 10.17085/apm.21115 35139608
Kim KM. Remimazolam: pharmacological characteristics and clinical applications in anesthesiology. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2022; 17: 1–11. 10.17085/apm.2111535139608
19. Minto CF Schnider TW Egan TD Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development Anesthesiology 1997 86 10 23 10.1097/00000542-199701000-00004 9009935
Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 10–23. 10.1097/00000542-199701000-000049009935
20. Chae D Kim HC Song Y Choi YS Han DW Pharmacodynamic analysis of intravenous bolus remimazolam for loss of consciousness in patients undergoing general anaesthesia: a randomised, prospective, double-blind study Br J Anaesth 2022 129 49 57 10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.040 35562226
Chae D, Kim HC, Song Y, Choi YS, Han DW. Pharmacodynamic analysis of intravenous bolus remimazolam for loss of consciousness in patients undergoing general anaesthesia: a randomised, prospective, double-blind study. Br J Anaesth 2022; 129: 49–57. 10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.04035562226
21. Yu AL Critchley LA Lee A Gin T Alfentanil dosage when inserting the classic laryngeal mask airway Anesthesiology 2006 105 684 688 10.1097/00000542-200610000-00012 17006065
Yu AL, Critchley LA, Lee A, Gin T. Alfentanil dosage when inserting the classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology 2006; 105: 684–8. 10.1097/00000542-200610000-0001217006065
22. Yoo S Park SK Kim WH The effect of neck extension on success rate of blind intubation through Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask: a randomized clinical trial Can J Anesth 2019 66 639 647 10.1007/s12630-019-01353-4 30919236
Yoo S, Park SK, Kim WH, et al. The effect of neck extension on success rate of blind intubation through Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Anesth 2019; 66: 639–47. 10.1007/s12630-019-01353-430919236
23. Dixon WJ Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1991 15 47 50 10.1016/s0149-7634(05)80090-9 2052197
Dixon WJ. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1991; 15: 47–50. 10.1016/s0149-7634(05)80090-92052197
24. Paul M Fisher DM Are estimates of MAC reliable? Anesthesiology 2001 95 1362 1370 10.1097/00000542-200112000-00014 11748393
Paul M, Fisher DM. Are estimates of MAC reliable? Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 1362–70. 10.1097/00000542-200112000-0001411748393
25. Pace NL Stylianou MP Advances in and limitations of up-and-down methodology: a précis of clinical use, study design, and dose estimation in anesthesia research Anesthesiology 2007 107 144 152 10.1097/01.anes.0000267514.42592.2a 17585226
Pace NL, Stylianou MP. Advances in and limitations of up-and-down methodology: a précis of clinical use, study design, and dose estimation in anesthesia research. Anesthesiology 2007; 107: 144–52. 10.1097/01.anes.0000267514.42592.2a17585226
26. Kim SH Fechner J Remimazolam—current knowledge on a new intravenous benzodiazepine anesthetic agent Korean J Anesthesiol 2022 75 307 315 10.4097/kja.22297 35585830
Kim SH, Fechner J. Remimazolam—current knowledge on a new intravenous benzodiazepine anesthetic agent. Korean J Anesthesiol 2022; 75: 307–15. 10.4097/kja.2229735585830
27. Park HJ Lee JR Kim CS Kim SD Kim HS Remifentanil halves the EC50 of propofol for successful insertion of the laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube in pediatric patients Anesth Analg 2007 105 57 61 10.1213/01.ane.0000266447.23037.e4 17578957
Park HJ, Lee JR, Kim CS, Kim SD, Kim HS. Remifentanil halves the EC50 of propofol for successful insertion of the laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg 2007; 105: 57–61. 10.1213/01.ane.0000266447.23037.e417578957
28. Kim MK Lee JW Jang DJ Shin OY Nam SB Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol Anaesthesia 2009 64 136 140 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05707.x 19143689
Kim MK, Lee JW, Jang DJ, Shin OY, Nam SB. Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 136–40. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05707.x19143689
29. Kim J Lee S Kim Y Jeong JS Remimazolam dose for successful insertion of a supraglottic airway device with opioids: a dose-determination study using Dixon's up-and-down method Can J Anesth 2023 70 343 350 10.1007/s12630-022-02379-x 36536157
Kim J, Lee S, Kim Y, Jeong JS. Remimazolam dose for successful insertion of a supraglottic airway device with opioids: a dose-determination study using Dixon's up-and-down method. Can J Anesth 2023; 70: 343–50. 10.1007/s12630-022-02379-x36536157
30. Ashay NA Wasim S Anil TB Propofol requirement for insertion of i-gel® versus laryngeal mask airway: a comparative dose finding study using Dixon's up-and-down method J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015 31 324 328 10.4103/0970-9185.161666 26330709
Ashay NA, Wasim S, Anil TB. Propofol requirement for insertion of i-gel® versus laryngeal mask airway: a comparative dose finding study using Dixon's up-and-down method. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015; 31: 324–8. 10.4103/0970-9185.16166626330709
31. Oh J Park SY Lee SY Determination of the 95% effective dose of remimazolam to achieve loss of consciousness during anesthesia induction in different age groups Korean J Anesthesiol 2022 75 510 517 10.4097/kja.22331 35912426
Oh J, Park SY, Lee SY, et al. Determination of the 95% effective dose of remimazolam to achieve loss of consciousness during anesthesia induction in different age groups. Korean J Anesthesiol 2022; 75: 510–7. 10.4097/kja.2233135912426
32. Masui K Stohr T Pesic M Tonai T A population pharmacokinetic model of remimazolam for general anesthesia and consideration of remimazolam dose in clinical practice J Anesth 2022 36 493 505 10.1007/s00540-022-03079-y 35708787
Masui K, Stohr T, Pesic M, Tonai T. A population pharmacokinetic model of remimazolam for general anesthesia and consideration of remimazolam dose in clinical practice. J Anesth 2022; 36: 493–505. 10.1007/s00540-022-03079-y35708787
33. Handa-Tsutsui F Kodaka M Propofol concentration requirement for laryngeal mask airway insertion was highest with the ProSeal, next highest with the Fastrach, and lowest with the Classic type, with target-controlled infusion J Clin Anesth 2005 17 344 347 10.1016/j.jclinane.2004.08.014 16102683
Handa-Tsutsui F, Kodaka M. Propofol concentration requirement for laryngeal mask airway insertion was highest with the ProSeal, next highest with the Fastrach, and lowest with the Classic type, with target-controlled infusion. J Clin Anesth 2005; 17: 344–7. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2004.08.01416102683
34. Guntz E Latrech B Tsiberidis C Gouwy J Kapessidou Y ED50 and ED90 of intrathecal hyperbaric 2% prilocaine in ambulatory knee arthroscopy Can J Anesth 2014 61 801 807 10.1007/s12630-014-0189-7 24906303
Guntz E, Latrech B, Tsiberidis C, Gouwy J, Kapessidou Y. ED50 and ED90 of intrathecal hyperbaric 2% prilocaine in ambulatory knee arthroscopy. Can J Anesth 2014; 61: 801–7. 10.1007/s12630-014-0189-724906303
35. Saranteas T Finlayson RJ Tran DQ Dose-finding methodology for peripheral nerve blocks Reg Anesth Pain Med 2014 39 550 555 10.1097/aap.0000000000000157 25304484
Saranteas T, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dose-finding methodology for peripheral nerve blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2014; 39: 550–5. 10.1097/aap.000000000000015725304484
