Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT)
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2.
RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol.
SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:94 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical anesthesia - 94(2024) vom: 01. Apr., Seite 111425 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Akhtar, Syed Muhammad Muneeb [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.03.2024 Date Revised 04.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM369025520 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM369025520 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240405233644.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240229s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1366.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM369025520 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38412619 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0952-8180(24)00054-0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Akhtar, Syed Muhammad Muneeb |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction |b A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 04.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2 | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol | ||
| 520 | |a SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Anesthesia efficacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Anesthesia induction | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ciprofol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Efficacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a General anesthesia | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Injection pain | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Propofol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Safety | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Propofol |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a YI7VU623SF |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anesthetics, Intravenous |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fareed, Areeba |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ali, Mirha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Khan, Muhammad Sohaib |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ali, Abraish |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mumtaz, Munazza |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kirchoff, Robert |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Asghar, Muhammad Sohaib |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical anesthesia |d 1996 |g 94(2024) vom: 01. Apr., Seite 111425 |w (DE-627)NLM013003399 |x 1873-4529 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:94 |g year:2024 |g day:01 |g month:04 |g pages:111425 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 94 |j 2024 |b 01 |c 04 |h 111425 | ||