The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy : A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc..
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy.
DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial.
SETTING: Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.
PATIENTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.
INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:95 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical anesthesia - 95(2024) vom: 30. Apr., Seite 111474 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Gao, Shi-Hui [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Anesthetics, Intravenous |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 27.04.2024 Date Revised 27.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111474 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370978439 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370978439 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240428232030.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240413s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111474 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1391.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370978439 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38608531 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0952-8180(24)00103-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gao, Shi-Hui |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy |b A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial |
| 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 27.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 27.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY OBJECTIVE: Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial | ||
| 520 | |a SETTING: Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022 | ||
| 520 | |a PATIENTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy | ||
| 520 | |a INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P) | ||
| 520 | |a MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events | ||
| 520 | |a MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ciprofol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Colonoscopy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Propofol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sedation | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Propofol |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a YI7VU623SF |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anesthetics, Intravenous |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Hypnotics and Sedatives |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tang, Qian-Qian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Chang-Ming |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guan, Zhan-Ying |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Ling-Ling |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Jing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yan, Zeng-Long |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical anesthesia |d 1996 |g 95(2024) vom: 30. Apr., Seite 111474 |w (DE-627)NLM013003399 |x 1873-4529 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:95 |g year:2024 |g day:30 |g month:04 |g pages:111474 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111474 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 95 |j 2024 |b 30 |c 04 |h 111474 | ||