Ciprofol- a game changing intravenous anesthetic or another experimental drug!

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.

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.

Anesthesia with ciprofol in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: A case report

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel agent for intravenous general anesthesia. In February 2022, it was approved by the National Medical Products Administration for general anesthesia induction and maintenance. It has the advantages of fast onset, fast elimination, stable circulation, and few adverse reactions. However, the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass have not been reported. Here we describe a case where ciprofol was successfully used for anesthesia in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

CASE SUMMARY

A 72-year-old man (height 176 cm; weight 70 kg) was diagnosed with coronary atherosclerotic cardiomyopathy requiring coronary artery bypass grafting and left ventricular aneurysmectomy. Ciprofol was administered for induction (0.4 mg/kg) and maintenance (0.6-1.0 mg/kg/h) of general anesthesia. During the entire operation, the bispectral index, hemodynamics, and blood oxygen saturation were maintained at normal levels. The patient recovered well after surgery, with no serious adverse events related to ciprofol.

CONCLUSION

Ciprofol is safe and effective for anesthesia in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil during fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Objective: Ciprofol is a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative that has improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with propofol. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Methods: Overall, 92 patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial and were equally divided into two groups (n = 46 each). Fentanyl (50 μg) was given 2 min before the intravenous infusion of 0.3 mg/kg of ciprofol or 1.2 mg/kg of propofol over a time period of 30 s. During anesthesia maintenance, 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min of remifentanil combined with one-third to one-fourth of the initial dose of ciprofol or propofol was repeated at 2-min intervals, as required, to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale score <3. The primary outcome was the successful rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics, time metrics, hemodynamics, coughing severity, intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, utilization of study drug doses, number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs) used, satisfaction scores of both patients and the endoscopist, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, patients' willing to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and occurrence and severity of adverse events. Results: The successful completion rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was 91.30% (42 of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.80%-99.80%) in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and 89.13% (41 of 46; 95% CI: 79.80%-98.50%) in the propofol-remifentanil group. Though the clinically acceptable intubating condition was improved in the ciprofol-remifentanil group, this difference has no clinical statistical difference (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to time metrics, consumption of fentanyl and remifentanil, or number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs). Patients' willingness to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy and the satisfaction of both patients and endoscopist were significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the propofol-remifentanil group, patients in the ciprofol-remifentanil group had more stable hemodynamics. The lowest oxygen saturation was significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). The numbers of patients who experienced pain on injection in the ciprofol-remifentanil group was significantly lower than the number in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.01). Severity of coughing, clinically acceptable severity of coughing, incidence of intraoperative awareness, and other adverse events were all similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Only four patients experienced grade 2 adverse events (severe hypotension in one patient in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and three patients in the propofol-remifentanil group; p > 0.05); they were treated with noradrenaline. Conclusion: Ciprofol-remifentanil was non-inferior to propofol-remifentanil with regard to successful sedation for flexible bronchoscopy, when used with pre-intravenous administration of 50 μg of fentanyl. At the same time, patients' willingness to repeat flexible bronchoscopy and the satisfactions were all significantly improved.