Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Muhammad Hudaib, Hurais Malik, Syeda Javeria Zakir, Samra Rabbani, Dhanushan Gnanendran, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Fatima Suri, Javeria Khan, Arham Iqbal, Nowal Hussain, Muhammad Abdullah, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri, Giustino Varrassi
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Muhammad Hudaib, Hurais Malik, Syeda Javeria Zakir, Samra Rabbani, Dhanushan Gnanendran, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Fatima Suri, Javeria Khan, Arham Iqbal, Nowal Hussain, Muhammad Abdullah, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri, Giustino Varrassi","doi":"10.1186/s44158-024-00160-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11008023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00160-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

用于全身麻醉诱导和维持的环丙酚与异丙酚的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:丙泊酚起效迅速,药代动力学特性良好,一直是麻醉诱导和维持的黄金标准。然而,为了寻找安全性和有效性更高的替代药物,丙泊酚的结构类似物--环丙酚(HSK3486)应运而生。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在全面评估在接受外科手术的成年患者中,与异丙酚相比,环丙酚用于麻醉诱导和维持的安全性和有效性:本研究仅纳入了参与者年龄在 18 岁或 18 岁以上、接受外科手术的双臂 RCT 研究。我们采用 RevMan 5.4.1 对提取的数据进行统计分析:在诱导阶段,异丙酚显示出麻醉师满意度较高的良好趋势(MD 0.14,95%,CI - 0.28 至 0.56,p = 0.51),而在维持阶段,异丙酚则更受青睐。丙泊酚还具有麻醉诱导成功时间短(MD 0.08 分钟,95% CI 0.00 至 0.15,p = 0.04)、达到完全警觉时间快(MD 0.11 分钟,95% CI - 1.29 至 1.52,p = 0.87)的优势,这表明它在临床实践中非常有效。重要的是,麻醉成功率没有明显差异:结论:异丙酚和丙泊酚对接受手术的成人患者进行麻醉诱导和维持的有效性和安全性相当。虽然丙泊酚的诱导起效更快,但环丙酚在疼痛控制方面更具优势。临床医生在选择麻醉剂时应考虑到这些研究结果,并根据患者的不同需求和临床情况进行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信