Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol as Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Painless Colonoscopy.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1007/s40122-024-00662-x
Ke Qiang He, Ting Ting Huang, Meng Yuan Tan, Chen Gao, Sheng Wang
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol as Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Painless Colonoscopy.","authors":"Ke Qiang He, Ting Ting Huang, Meng Yuan Tan, Chen Gao, Sheng Wang","doi":"10.1007/s40122-024-00662-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ciprofol is a novel propofol analogue with a characteristic of hemodynamic stability. At present, there is a lack of research comparing the hemodynamic stability of ciprofol and propofol during painless colonoscopy. In this study, we aim to test the hypothesis that ciprofol is superior to propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability for sedation anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 222 patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in group P (n = 112) and group C (n = 110) received propofol and ciprofol sedation, respectively. Noninvasive blood pressure were monitored starting from induction (T<sub>0</sub>) to the end of the procedure, at 2-min intervals (T<sub>1</sub> to T<sub>10</sub>). Heart rate variability (HRV), pain injection, Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) score, body movement, doses of norepinephrine, modified Aldrete score, drug-related adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction and endoscopist satisfaction were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In group C, fewer patients experienced a decrease in blood pressure with a higher HRV after induction sedation, the incidence of pain injection was reduced, the amount of norepinephrine dose was decreased, patient satisfaction was increased compared with group P (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in induction time, modified Aldrete score, alertness time, drug-related adverse reactions, and endoscopist satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicated intravenous induction with ciprofol was superior, with regard to hemodynamic stability and reduced injection pain, than induction with propofol for anesthesia in patients undergoing painless colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061814).</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1633-1644"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11543975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00662-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Ciprofol is a novel propofol analogue with a characteristic of hemodynamic stability. At present, there is a lack of research comparing the hemodynamic stability of ciprofol and propofol during painless colonoscopy. In this study, we aim to test the hypothesis that ciprofol is superior to propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability for sedation anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods: A total of 222 patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in group P (n = 112) and group C (n = 110) received propofol and ciprofol sedation, respectively. Noninvasive blood pressure were monitored starting from induction (T0) to the end of the procedure, at 2-min intervals (T1 to T10). Heart rate variability (HRV), pain injection, Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) score, body movement, doses of norepinephrine, modified Aldrete score, drug-related adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction and endoscopist satisfaction were recorded.

Results: In group C, fewer patients experienced a decrease in blood pressure with a higher HRV after induction sedation, the incidence of pain injection was reduced, the amount of norepinephrine dose was decreased, patient satisfaction was increased compared with group P (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in induction time, modified Aldrete score, alertness time, drug-related adverse reactions, and endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions: Our study indicated intravenous induction with ciprofol was superior, with regard to hemodynamic stability and reduced injection pain, than induction with propofol for anesthesia in patients undergoing painless colonoscopy.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061814).

对接受无痛结肠镜检查的患者使用异丙酚与丙泊酚作为麻醉剂的有效性和安全性。
简介异丙酚是一种新型的异丙酚类似物,具有血流动力学稳定的特点。目前,还缺乏对无痛结肠镜检查过程中丙泊酚和异丙酚的血流动力学稳定性进行比较的研究。在本研究中,我们旨在验证一个假设,即在对结肠镜检查患者进行镇静麻醉时,环丙酚在血流动力学稳定性方面优于异丙酚:共有 222 名患者被随机分为两组。P组(112人)和C组(110人)患者分别接受异丙酚和环丙酚镇静。从诱导(T0)开始到手术结束,每隔 2 分钟(T1 至 T10)监测一次无创血压。记录心率变异性(HRV)、疼痛注射、改良观察者警觉性和镇静评估(MOAA/S)评分、身体移动、去甲肾上腺素剂量、改良 Aldrete 评分、药物相关不良反应、患者满意度和内镜医师满意度:结果:与 P 组相比,C 组患者在诱导镇静后出现血压下降且心率变异较高的情况较少,注射疼痛发生率降低,去甲肾上腺素用量减少,患者满意度提高(均为 P 结论:C 组患者在诱导镇静后出现血压下降且心率变异较高的情况较少,注射疼痛发生率降低,去甲肾上腺素用量减少,患者满意度提高:我们的研究表明,在无痛结肠镜检查患者的麻醉中,使用环丙酚进行静脉诱导在血流动力学稳定性和减少注射疼痛方面优于使用异丙酚进行诱导:中国临床试验注册中心(ChiCTR2200061814)。
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
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
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