Ciprofol: A Novel Alternative to Propofol in Clinical Intravenous Anesthesia?

Comparison of Ciprofol-Based and Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Microvascular Decompression of Facial Nerve with Neurophysiological Monitoring: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

Ciprofol is a recently developed short-acting gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist with a higher potency than that of propofol. As a new sedative drug, there are few clinical studies on ciprofol. We sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ciprofol use for general anesthesia in neurosurgical individuals undergoing neurosurgical surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM).

Patients and Methods

This single-center, non-inferiority, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from September 13, 2022 to September 22, 2023. 120 patients undergoing elective microvascular decompression surgery (MVD) with IONM were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol or propofol. The primary outcome of this study was the amplitude of intraoperative compound muscle action potential decline, and the secondary outcome included the indexes related to neurophysiological monitoring and anesthesia outcomes.

Results

The mean values of the primary outcome in the ciprofol group and the propofol group were 64.7±44.1 and 53.4±35.4, respectively. Furthermore, the 95% confidence interval of the difference was -25.78 to 3.12, with the upper limit of the difference being lower than the non-inferiority boundary of 6.6. Ciprofol could achieve non-inferior effectiveness in comparison with propofol in IONM of MVD. The result during anesthesia induction showed that the magnitude of the blood pressure drop and the incidence of injection pain in the ciprofol group were significantly lower than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The sedative drug and norepinephrine consumption in the ciprofol group was significantly lower than that in the propofol group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Ciprofol is not inferior to propofol in the effectiveness and safety of IONM and the surgical outcome. Concurrently, ciprofol is more conducive to reducing injection pain and improving hemodynamic stability, which may be more suitable for IONM-related surgery, and has a broad application prospect.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety relationship of ciprofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a newly developed, highly selective γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor potentiator that is recently approved for a new indication of sedation for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) in China. This analysis aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (PopPKs) of ciprofol and evaluate the relationship of exposure with hypotension in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. A total of 462 subjects with 3918 concentration measurements from two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, four clinical trials of elective surgical patients, and six clinical trials of healthy subjects were used in the PopPK analysis. Exposure-safety relationship for hypotension was evaluated based on the data gathered from 112 subjects in two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics (PKs) was adequately described by a three-compartment linear disposition model with first-order elimination. Body weight, age, sex, blood sampling site (vein vs. arterial), study design (long-term infusion vs. short-term infusion), and patient population (ICU vs. non-ICU) were identified as statistically significant covariates on the PKs of ciprofol. Within the exposure range of the mechanically ventilated ICU patient population, no meaningful association was observed between ciprofol exposure and the incidence of hypotension. These results support the dosing regimen currently used in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.

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 the Efficacy of HSK3486 and Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Phase 3 Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic associated with hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection-site pain. HSK3486 injectable emulsion (ciprofol) is a 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative with fast onset and quick, stable recovery. Previous studies support HSK3486 as an effective, safe anesthetic with substantially less injection-site pain than propofol. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful general anesthesia induction.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-five participants were enrolled in HSK3486-304, a multicenter, randomized (2:1), double-blind, propofol-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating HSK3486 for general anesthesia induction in adults undergoing elective surgery with tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was successful anesthesia induction, defined as 1 or less on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of participants with injection-site pain on the Numerical Rating Scale of 1 or greater and a composite endpoint, including the proportion of participants successfully induced while maintaining the desired anesthetic depth and without substantial cardiac and respiratory events. Safety endpoints included adverse events, abnormal vital signs, and injection-site pain.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-one participants (HSK3486, n = 168; propofol, n = 83) were included in the analyses. General anesthesia was successfully induced in 97.0% versus 97.6% of participants with HSK3486 and propofol, respectively. The difference in success rate was -0.57% (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.2%); the noninferiority boundary of -8% was not crossed. Thirty participants (18.0%) had injection-site pain with HSK3486 versus 64 (77.1%) with propofol (P < 0.0001). Eighty-one participants (48.2%) with HSK3486 versus 42 (50.6%) with propofol (P = 0.8780) satisfied the composite endpoint. When injection-site pain was excluded, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events related to study drug was 17.9% for HSK3486 and 14.5% for propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

The study met its primary objective and endpoint, demonstrating noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful anesthetic induction. Substantially less injection-site pain was associated with HSK3486 than with propofol.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

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.

Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol Combined With Sufentanil for Inhibiting the Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Placement Reaction in Elderly Patients

Objective

Ciprofol is a new sedative anesthetic drug that can be used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and induction of general anesthesia, but the appropriate dosage for use in elderly patients has not been determined. Sufentanil is a commonly used opioid in clinical practice, and this study was designed to induce anesthesia in elderly patients using sufentanil in combination with ciprofol. However, the optimal dosage of ciprofol when it is co-administered with sufentanil has not yet been established. This study was designed to find the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of ciprofol for intravenous anesthesia when combined with sufentanil.

Methods

We studied 57 patients who were scheduled to undergo a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. According to age, it was divided into two groups: 65∼74 years old (group A) and over 75 years old (group B). Using the modified Dixon sequence test method, intravenous bolus of 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil was given 3 min before ciprofol is administered, the initial dose of ciprofol was 0.4 mg/kg, the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was placed after reaching the depth of sedation, and vital signs and adverse events were recorded at each perioperative time point (T0-T7).

Results

In the group A, when combined with 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil, the ED50 of ciprofol to inhibiting responses to insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was 0.23 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.09∼0.30 mg/kg; in the group B, the ED50 was 0.18 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.13∼0.22 mg/kg.

Conclusion

The ED50 of ciprofol in combination with sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: 0.23 mg/kg in group A and 0.18 mg/kg in group B.

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.

The Effect of Ciprofol on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Purpose

This study was conducted to assess whether ciprofol vs propofol could affect the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly patients with lung cancer after thoracoscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

In this study, a total of 84 elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer were recruited and randomized into two groups to receive anesthesia with either ciprofol or propofol. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD within three days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score, intraoperative indicators related to mean arterial pressure (MAP), and cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (SctO2). Moreover, MAP- and SctO2-related indicators associated with POD were analyzed.

Results

The incidence of POD was 7.1% and 16.7%, respectively, in the ciprofol group and the propofol group (risk ratio [RR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 2.03; risk difference [RD], -9.6%; 95% CI, -23.3% to 4.1%; p = 0.178). Compared with those in the propofol group, patients in the ciprofol group had lower CAM scores three days after surgery (13 (12, 15) vs 15 (14, 17); 12 (11, 13) vs 14 (13, 16); 12 (11, 12) vs 13 (12, 14), p<0.05). Besides, patients in the ciprofol group exhibited higher mean and minimum MAP (88.63 ± 6.7 vs 85 ± 8.3; 69.81 ± 9.59 vs 64.9 ± 9.43, p<0.05) and SctO2 (77.26 ± 3.96 vs 75.3 ± 4.49, 71.69 ± 4.51 vs 68.77 ± 6.46, p<0.05) and percentage of time for blood pressure stabilization (0.6 ± 0.14 vs 0.45 ± 0.14, p<0.05) than those in the propofol group. Furthermore, MAP and SctO2-related indicators were validated to correlate with POD.

Conclusion

Anesthesia with ciprofol did not increase the incidence of POD compared with propofol. The results demonstrated that ciprofol could improve intraoperative MAP and SctO2 levels and diminish postoperative CAM scores.

Ciprofol is primarily glucuronidated by UGT1A9 and predicted not to cause drug-drug interactions with typical substrates of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent. Its major glucuronide metabolite, M4, is found in plasma and urine. However, the specific isoforms of UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) that metabolize ciprofol to M4 remain unknown. This study systematically characterized UGTs that contribute to the formation of M4 using human liver microsomes (HLM), human intestinal microsomes (HIM), and human recombinant UGTs. The inhibitory potential of ciprofol and M4 against major human UGTs and cytochrome P450 enzymes (P450s) was also explored. In vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) simulations were performed to predict potential in vivo drug-drug interactions (DDIs) caused by ciprofol. Glucuronidation of ciprofol followed Michaelis-Menten kinetics in both HLM and HIM with apparent Km values of 345 and 412 μM, Vmax values of 2214 and 444 nmol min-1·mg protein-1, respectively. The in vitro intrinsic clearances (CLint = Vmax/Km) for ciprofol glucuronidation by HLM and HIM were 6.4 and 1.1 μL min-1·mg protein-1, respectively. Human recombinant UGT studies revealed that UGT1A9 is the predominant isoform mediating M4 formation, followed by UGT1A7, with UGT1A8 playing a minor role. Ciprofol competitively inhibited CYP1A2 (Ki = 12 μM) and CYP2B6 (Ki = 4.7 μM), and noncompetitively inhibited CYP2C19 (Ki = 29 μM). No time-dependent inhibition by ciprofol was noted for CYP1A2, CYP2B6, or CYP2C19. In contrast, M4 showed limited or no inhibitory effects against selected P450s. Neither ciprofol nor M4 inhibited UGTs significantly. Initial IVIVE suggested potential ciprofol-mediated inhibition of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19 inhibition in vivo. However, PBPK simulations showed no significant effect on phenacetin, bupropion, and S-mephenytoin exposure or peak plasma concentration. Our findings are pertinent for future DDI studies of ciprofol as either a perpetrator or victim drug.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation

Background: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

Efficacy and safety comparison of esketamine-propofol with nalbuphine-propofol for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: a multi-center randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Anesthetics such as propofol, esketamine and nalbuphine are used during the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-esketamine in children.

Methods

A multi-centered study was performed at three tertiary class-A hospitals. Children between 3 and 12 years old undergoing diagnostic painless upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were included and randomly divided into esketamine or nalbuphine group to estimate the primary outcome of successful endoscope insertion. The patients were given esketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg intravenously in esketamine group, with nalbuphine 0.2 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg in the nalbuphine group. The primary outcome was success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion in each group. Secondary outcomes included the safety of both anesthesia regimens and gastroenterologist's satisfaction. We used the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale to evaluate the level of pain before and during the procedure and the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale to assess the level of agitation and delirium after awakening from anesthesia.

Results

Among 246 patients, 200 were randomly included in the final intention-to-treat analysis, with 100 patients in each group. The success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion in the esketamine group was higher than the nalbuphine group (97% vs. 66%; P < 0.01). The heart rate and mean arterial pressure after intraoperative administration in the esketamine group were higher than those in the nalbuphine group, while the delirium incidence during awakening was higher in esketamine group (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion of children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in the esketamine group was higher than the nalbuphine group, propofol-related hemodynamic changes were reduced accordingly, while the incidence of esketamine-related adverse effects could be high.

Clinical Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040500.

The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ciprofol is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. However, whether it is superior to propofol and its optimal dose remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 149 patients, 63 males and 86 females, aged 18-80 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m², ASA I-III, were divided randomly into four groups: propofol group (group P, n = 44), ciprofol 0.2mg/kg group (group C2, n = 38), ciprofol 0.3mg/kg group (group C3, n = 36) and ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg group (group C4, n = 31). Groups C2, C3 and C4 had injected IV with ciprofol 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg/kg, respectively. Group P had injected IV with propofol 1.5mg/kg. The time for disappearance of the eyelash reflex, gastrointestinal endoscopy time, recovery time, and the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score at awakening (T₁), 15 minutes after awakening (T₂) and 30 minutes after awakening (T₃) were recorded.

Results

Compared with group P, the time to fall asleep was significantly shortened, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting and injection pain was significantly lower in groups C2, C3 and C4 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in recovery time and recovery quality between each group (P > 0.05). Compared with group P and C4, the incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression was significantly lower in groups C2 and C3 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The appropriate dose of ciprofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is more advantageous than propofol in hemodynamics and respiratory stability, with less injection pain and nausea and vomiting, which is worthy of clinical promotion.