Clinical effect of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients: A randomized, controlled trial

A meta-analysis and systematic review based on perioperative management of elderly patients: is ciprofol an alternative to propofol?

PURPOSE

With the rising number of elderly surgical patients, selecting an appropriate anesthetic tailored to their specific needs is essential. Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has garnered attention due to its low injection pain rate and minimal impact on the circulatory system. This meta-analysis aims to examine the efficacy and safety profile of ciprofol during perioperative management of elderly patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to March 23, 2024, were conducted. Eligible studies were included, data extracted, quality assessed using the ROB2 tool, and analyses performed with Stata 17.0.

RESULTS

Analysis of eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 1715 patients demonstrated that ciprofol outperformed propofol regarding injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09-0.20, p < 0.001), hypotension (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.94; p = 0.014), bradycardia (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.85, p = 0.002), respiratory depression (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.43, p < 0.001), hypoxemia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.26-0.55, p < 0.001), and body movement (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.96, p = 0.022). No significant differences were observed in induction time(SMD: 0.11,95% CI: -0.39-0.61, p = 0.655), sedative success rate(RR:1.01,,:95% CI:0.97-1.06, p = 0.669)), time of leaving the operating room(SMD-0.21,95% CI: -0.83-0.40, p = 0.497), bucking(RR:0.56,:95% CI:0.27-1.17, p = 0.134)), nausea and vomiting(RR:0.69,95% CI:0.43-1.11, p = 0.143)).

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol demonstrates comparable efficacy to propofol in general anesthesia for elderly patients, with an enhanced safety profile, making it a viable clinical alternative. Further well-designed large RCTs are required to substantiate its safety profile.

EC50 and EC95 of Remifentanil for Inhibiting Bronchoscopy Responses in Elderly Patients During Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy Under Ciprofol Sedation: An Up-and-Down Sequential Allocation Trial

Background

Opioids are used to suppress cough during fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). However, evidence regarding the optimal dose of remifentanil during FOB under ciprofol sedation is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effective concentration (EC) of remifentanil required to suppress bronchoscopy responses during FOB under ciprofol sedation in elderly patients.

Materials and Methods

Elderly patients aged 60 to 90 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, scheduled for FOB, were enrolled. Patients were assigned to either the male or the female group. Remifentanil was administered intravenously prior to ciprofol administration. The endpoints included responses to FOB, such as vocal cords movement, coughing, and body movement. The EC50 and EC95 values of remifentanil required to alleviate the responses to FOB were calculated using Dixon's up-and-down method for both male and female groups. Probit analysis was used to generate a dose-response curve.

Results

Thirty-nine patients (19 males and 20 females) were enrolled. The EC50 values (plasma concentration) of remifentanil for blunting FOB responses under ciprofol sedation were 3.25 (2.75 to 3.26) ng/mL and 2.25 (1.75 to 2.25) ng/mL in males and females, respectively (p = 0.0023). Probit analysis indicated that the EC50 of remifentanil required to suppress responses to FOB under ciprofol sedation was 3.102 [95% confidence interval (CI):2.694 to 3.749] ng/mL and 2.052 [95% CI: 1.345 to 2.750] ng/mL in males and females, respectively. The EC95 of remifentanil required to suppress responses to FOB under ciprofol sedation was 3.741 [95% CI: 3.366 to 7.699] ng/mL and 2.943 [95% CI: 2.456 to 9.533] ng/mL in males and females, respectively.

Conclusion

The results indicate differences between males and females in the EC50 and EC95 of remifentanil needed to suppress responses to FOB under ciprofol sedation while preserving spontaneous breathing in elderly patients.

Trial Registration

The study was registered with chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300077720; 17 th November 2023).

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for ERCP anesthesia in older patients: A single-center randomized controlled clinical study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients.

DESIGN

A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study.

SETTING

General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.

PATIENTS

We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8-1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5-2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain).

MAIN RESULTS

The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (- 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of -8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, p < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, p < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).

Comparative effects of ciprofol and propofol on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The ideal anesthetic agents for sedation, considering their respiratory and cardiovascular benefits and other perioperative or postoperative outcomes, are still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether ciprofol has advantages over propofol for sedation, particularly concerning respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes and other relevant perioperative measures.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ciprofol and propofol for sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse respiratory events. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia during surgery, perioperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative awakening time. A random-effects model was used for more than four studies; otherwise, we employed the random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment.

RESULTS

Intravenous ciprofol resulted in fewer adverse respiratory events than propofol (Risk Ratio [RR = 0.44]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.35-0.55], p < 0.001, I2 = 45%, low quality). It also showed a lower incidence of injection pain (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.08‒0.17, p < 0.001, I2 = 36%, low quality), intraoperative hypotension (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.77, p < 0.001, I2 = 58%, low quality), and nausea and vomiting than propofol (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p = 0.01, I2 = 0%, moderate quality). However, no significant differences were observed for hypertension, bradycardia, and awakening time.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol may be more effective than propofol in minimizing perioperative respiratory adverse events and maintaining hemodynamic stability during sedation without prolonging recovery time.

Comparative efficacy of ciprofol and propofol in reducing respiratory depression during ERCP anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is one of the important drug causes of respiratory depression in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia. This study aims to clarify whether Ciprofol in ERCP anesthesia reduces the respiratory depression rate.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial performed at the Surgical Endoscopy Center, the First Hospital of Lanzhou University between Jun 01, 2022 and Feb 20, 2024, patients undergoing ERCP anesthesia were randomly assigned into ciprofol (study group) or propofol (control group). Primary outcomes included respiratory depression rate during anesthesia, and secondary outcomes included body movement and hypoxemia, awakening time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate changes at key points during surgery.

RESULTS

20 of the 306 patients had respiratory depression (6.5%). The frequency of respiratory depression was 3.3% in the group C and 9.8% in the group P, with a difference of 6.5% between the two groups (P = 0.035). Ciprofol anesthesia decreased the hyoxemia, injection pain, and circulation and heart rate fluctuations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that Propofol (OR 1.970; 95% CI, 1.121-3.461, P = 0.018), mallampati classification>II (OR 1.594; 95% CI, 1.129-2.249, P = 0.008), and fasting time>10.5 h (OR 3.184; 95% CI, 1.531-6.621, P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for incidence of respiratory depression in ERCP anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing anesthesia for ERCP, Ciprofol, compared to Propofol, has been shown to effectively reduce the incidence of intraoperative respiratory depression, thereby enhancing the safety of the anesthesia process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 15/01/2022 (ChiCTR2200055629).

Bispectral Index-Monitored Anesthesia Induction in Older Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: Comparing Ciprofol and Propofol in a Prospective, Single-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study

Purpose

Ciprofol, a new sedative anesthetic developed in China, offers rapid onset and recovery, reduced injection pain, and stable circulation. However, its effect on blood pressure during anesthesia induction in older adults remains unclear. To compare the effects of propofol and ciprofol on hypotension induced by general anesthesia in older adults.

Patients and Methods

This prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical study enrolled 117 older adults undergoing surgery. Patients in the ciprofol group (group C) received an intravenous injection of ciprofol (0.3 mg/kg, n=57), while the propofol group (group P) received an intravenous injection of propofol (1.5 mg/kg, n=58). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension (mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased by > 30% from baseline or MAP< 65 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included induction success rate (bispectral index (BIS) value ≤60 and Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) score ≤1), injection pain, number of drug additions, time to BIS 60, time to eyelash reflex disappearance, blood pressure changes, incidence of hypertension, tachycardia and BIS values before and after administration.

Results

The incidence of induced hypotension was 26.3% (15/57) in group C and 48.3% (28/58) in group P (OR=0.383, 95% CI:175-0.837, P =0.015). Group C had significantly lower injection pain incidence (5.3% vs 20.7%, OR=0.213, 95% CI: 0.057-0.801, p=0.014). Both groups had a 100% induction success rate, with no significant difference in the number of additional doses. Post-intubation hypertension and tachycardia incidence were not significantly different. Group C showed less blood pressure decrease during induction and a deeper anesthesia level.

Conclusion

Compared to propofol, ciprofol reduces the incidence of induced hypotension in older adults and maintains more stable blood pressure during induction. Additionally, ciprofol reduces injection pain and provides a good depth of anesthesia, making it a safe and effective option for anesthesia induction in older adults.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier

ChiCTR2200066053.

Ciprofol in Children Undergoing Adenoidectomy and Adenotonsillectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

Ciprofol is a novel anesthetic agent, its efficacy and safety had been verified and its clinical implementation has been expanded. However, the knowledge about ciprofol in children is meager. The aim of study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ciprofol in general anesthesia in children undergoing adenoidectomy and adenotonsillectomy, compared with propofol.

Materials

We retrospectively analyzed data of children who underwent adenoidectomy or adenotonsillectomy with general anesthesia from June to August 2023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ciprofol. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic changes during induction and postoperative complications in post-anesthesia care unit. The secondary outcomes were extubation time, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) score. Meanwhile, subgroup analysis was performed based on age.

Results

301 children met the inclusion criteria, 157 received ciprofol induction and 144 received propofol. Patient demographics and operation-related information were similar in the two groups. However, the dosage of dexmedetomidine in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the ciprofol group (p=0.001). The trends of hemodynamic shift during induction and intubation were the same in the two groups. The PAED scores on post-extubation 10min and 20min were significantly reduced in the ciprofol group (p<0.001 and p=0.046). Moreover, in the ≤72 months and the >72 months subgroups, the scores were also significantly lower in the ciprofol group on post-extubation 10min. With the score of >10, the incidence of emergence delirium of the ciprofol group was significantly lower on post-extubation 10min and 20min in the population and the ≤72 months subgroups (p=0.03 and p=0.02). There were no obvious postoperative complications in both groups.

Conclusion

Ciprofol exhibited advantageous characteristics in the induction of children, such as stable hemodynamics, a relatively lower incidence of postoperative delirium without apparent post-anesthesia complications. Ciprofol may emerge as a novel option for general anesthesia in pediatric patients.

Efficacy and Safety of General Anesthesia Induction with Ciprofol in Hip Fracture Surgery of Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Ciprofol is a new intravenous sedative / anesthetic drug. In recent years, many clinical studies have also confirmed the sedative effect of ciprofol. However, more clinical research is still needed on its clinical application characteristics in special populations.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effects of ciprofol and propofol in general anesthesia induction of elderly patients.

Methods

60 elderly (aged ≥ 75 years) patients underwent hip fracture surgery were randomly into two groups of a 1:1 ratio. Group C (ciprofol group): 0.3mg/kg ciprofol was infused. Group P (propofol group): 1.5mg/kg propofol was infused. The observation period was from the infusion of test drug to 5 min after endotracheal intubation. The primary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypotension and hypotension during the observation period. The secondary outcomes were as follows: the success rate of general anesthesia induction, the number of additional sedation, the time of loss of consciousness (LOC), Δ MAP, Δ HR, adverse events and the frequency of vasoactive drugs used.

Results

Finally, 60 subjects completed the study. Compared with Group P, the incidence of severe hypotension in Group C was lower (26.7% vs 53.3%, P = 0.035), the incidence of hypotension was also lower (36.7% vs 63.3%, P = 0.037), Δ MAP in Group C was significantly lower (31.4 ± 11.4 vs 39.6 ± 15.7, P = 0.025), the frequency of ephedrine used and the incidence of injection pain in Group C were also significantly lower.

Conclusion

Ciprofol showed similar efficacy to propofol when used for general anesthesia induction in elderly patients underwent hip fracture surgery and could maintain more stable blood pressure.

Pharmacological Insights and Clinical Applications of Ciprofol: A Narrative Review

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anaesthetic developed as an alternative to propofol, offering a safer and more effective option in anaesthesia. It works primarily by modulating the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors in the central nervous system, leading to sedation and hypnosis. Ciprofol's unique pharmacological properties include a rapid onset of action, shorter duration, and reduced cardiovascular and respiratory depression compared to propofol, making it particularly suitable for outpatient and day surgery procedures. Molecular changes in ciprofol appear to be superior to those of other cibenzolines; it is more potent and has a stable hemodynamic effect. It has been used in primary surgery, inpatients and outpatients, and even for sedation of intensive care patients. The reported clinical data indicate that ciprofol is a powerful sedative that is characterised by a high-enough speed of emergence from the state of anaesthesia, which is necessary for outpatient conditions and intensive operating modes. It can be considered a new and important perspective in the technology of intravenous anaesthetics with its improved pharmacological characteristics and clinical effects. With the further accumulation of clinical data, ciprofol will undeniably become an essential agent in today's anaesthetic practice and contribute to an enhancement of healthcare efficiency by providing a more secure approach to numerous kinds of surgical interventions. The purpose of the current study is to provide a review of the pharmacology and clinical use of ciprofol, a new intravenous anaesthetic agent. Various studies demonstrate the functionality and safety profile of ciprofol, which solidifies it as a potential contender for propofol. Regarding respiratory depression, hypoxemia, and injection pain during hysteroscopy, ciprofol was shown to be a relatively safer option than propofol. Ciprofol can, therefore, be recommended for intravenous anaesthesia because of its effectiveness and safety, which has been clearly demonstrated. Randomised trials uniformly report the ability to achieve quicker onset of sedation and lower risk with the agent compared to propofol. These findings imply that ciprofol has many benefits concerning a variety of applications in patients due to a lower rate of adverse reactions and increased patient comfort.

ED50 of ciprofol combined with sufentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy of different patient populations with pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a promising sedative. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) of different genders and ages when combined with 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil, and to evaluate its efficacy and safety, providing a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practice.

METHODS

PTB patients who underwent bronchoscopy examination and treatment at The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou between May 2023 and June 2023 were selected and divided into four groups using a stratified random method. All patients received intravenous injection of 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil followed by injection of the test dose of ciprofol according to Dixon's up-and-down method. The initial dose of ciprofol in all four groups was 0.4 mg/kg, with an adjacent ratio of 1:1.1. The next patient received a 10% increase in the dose of ciprofol if the previous patient in the same group experienced positive reactions such as choking cough, frowning, and body movements during the endoscopy. Otherwise, it was judged as a negative reaction, and the next patient received a 10% decrease in the dose of ciprofol. The transition from a positive reaction to a negative reaction was defined as a turning point, and the study of the group was terminated when seven turning points occurred. Hemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation and adverse reactions were recorded at different time points in all groups. The Probit regression analysis method was used to calculate the ED50 of ciprofol in the four groups and compare between the groups.

RESULTS

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil for bronchoscopy in the four groups were 0.465 mg/kg, 0.433 mg/kg, 0.420 mg/kg and 0.396 mg/kg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol used for fiberoptic bronchoscopy varied among PTB patients of different genders and ages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300071508, Registered on 17 May 2023.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.

METHODS

This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias).

RESULTS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

Exploring Ciprofol Alternatives: A Comprehensive Review of Intravenous Anesthesia Options

Ciprofol is a recently developed, short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist sedative that is more potent than propofol. Still, there have been few clinical studies of this agent to date. This review explores alternative intravenous anesthesia options to ciprofol, considering their pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety profile, and practical considerations. While ciprofol offers advantages such as rapid onset and predictable offset, concerns regarding its safety profile and individual variability in response have prompted the search for alternatives. Propofol, etomidate, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine are discussed as established options, each with unique characteristics and potential benefits. Emerging agents, including remimazolam, sufentanil, alfaxalone, and brexanolone, are examined for their potential role in anesthesia management. Recommendations for future research include large-scale comparative studies, optimization of dosing strategies, and personalized approaches guided by pharmacogenomic insights. Ultimately, the future of intravenous anesthesia lies in a multifaceted approach that integrates evidence-based practices, technological innovations, and individualized patient care to enhance safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction across the perioperative continuum. Collaboration among stakeholders will be crucial in advancing the field and shaping the future landscape of intravenous anesthesia options.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.