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

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 (HSK3486) for procedural sedation and anesthesia induction in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer adverse events. We summarized all available evidence and analyzed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol during procedural sedation and anesthesia induction.

Methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and the VIP Chinese Journal Service platform was conducted from inception of databases to March 1, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used separately for binary categorical and continuous variables. We performed trial sequential analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to judge the certainty of evidence.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 2441 patients were included in this study. Ciprofol showed similar advantages to propofol in terms of induction success rate (RR = 1, 95 % CI = 0.99, 1.01, moderate certainty) and induction time (MD = 3.31, 95 % CI = -0.34, 6.95, low certainty), but did not increase the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95 % CI = 0.78, 1.00, very low certainty), such as bradycardia (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.77, 1.21, high certainty), hypoxia (RR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.46, 1.37, p = 0.40, moderate certainty) and other adverse events. Although it may be associated with a longer time to be fully alert (MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = 0.32, 2.12, very low certainty), ciprofol significantly reduced injection pain (RR = 0.15, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.24, low certainty) and may have reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.63, 0.94, low certainty) and respiratory depression (RR = 0.29, 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.56, moderate certainty).

Conclusion

Ciprofol and propofol had similar effects on most outcomes. While the time to full alertness may be prolonged, injection pain was significantly reduced, and hypotension and respiratory depression may be reduced compared with propofol. We believe that ciprofol is an effective alternative to intravenous anesthetic agents.