Effects of Ciprofol and Propofol General Anesthesia on Postoperative Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Ureteroscopy: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

IF 4.7 2区医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL

Drug Design, Development and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S497554

Shuqi Shi, Jimin Wu, Yini Wu, Xin Han, Hong Dai, Xuedong Chen, Zhangnan Sun, Faxing Wang

{"title":"Effects of Ciprofol and Propofol General Anesthesia on Postoperative Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Ureteroscopy: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.","authors":"Shuqi Shi, Jimin Wu, Yini Wu, Xin Han, Hong Dai, Xuedong Chen, Zhangnan Sun, Faxing Wang","doi":"10.2147/DDDT.S497554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study compares postoperative recovery quality between Ciprofol and Propofol, providing a reference for the clinical application of anesthetics.Methods: We randomized 112 patients undergoing ureteroscopic surgery into two groups: the Ciprofol group (Group C), with an induction dose of 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.8-1.5 mg/(kg·h), and the Propofol group (Group P), with an induction dose of 2 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 4-10 mg/(kg·h). Both groups received sevoflurane at a concentration of 1%. The Bispectral Index (BIS) was maintained between 40 and 60. The primary outcomes were the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores on postoperative day 1 (POD1). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters, vasopressor use, timing indicators, sedative consumption, BIS values, Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (R-SAS) scores, urinary tract symptoms, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.Results: No significant differences were observed in QoR-15 scores between the two groups. Although Group C had higher pain (P = 0.004) and comfort (P = 0.002) scores on POD1, these differences were not clinically significant. The incidence of hypotension and vasopressor use was lower in Group C, which had more stable hemodynamics. Additionally, the time from induction to BIS ≤ 60 was shorter in Group P (P = 0.001), while Group C had lower BIS values from drug discontinuation to full recovery of consciousness (P = 0.001). The incidence of urinary tract symptoms on POD1 was lower in Group C (P = 0.043). There were no significant differences in time to spontaneous breathing recovery, extubation, recovery room stay, time to first ambulation, hospital stay, patient satisfaction, or other adverse events.Conclusion: Ciprofol provides comparable early postoperative recovery to Propofol during ureteroscopy and may be a preferable alternative for urological procedures, especially in patients with blood pressure concerns.Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400082736).","PeriodicalId":11290,"journal":{"name":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","volume":"19 ","pages":"931-943"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11829596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S497554","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study compares postoperative recovery quality between Ciprofol and Propofol, providing a reference for the clinical application of anesthetics.

Methods: We randomized 112 patients undergoing ureteroscopic surgery into two groups: the Ciprofol group (Group C), with an induction dose of 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.8-1.5 mg/(kg·h), and the Propofol group (Group P), with an induction dose of 2 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 4-10 mg/(kg·h). Both groups received sevoflurane at a concentration of 1%. The Bispectral Index (BIS) was maintained between 40 and 60. The primary outcomes were the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores on postoperative day 1 (POD1). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters, vasopressor use, timing indicators, sedative consumption, BIS values, Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (R-SAS) scores, urinary tract symptoms, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.

Results: No significant differences were observed in QoR-15 scores between the two groups. Although Group C had higher pain (P = 0.004) and comfort (P = 0.002) scores on POD1, these differences were not clinically significant. The incidence of hypotension and vasopressor use was lower in Group C, which had more stable hemodynamics. Additionally, the time from induction to BIS ≤ 60 was shorter in Group P (P = 0.001), while Group C had lower BIS values from drug discontinuation to full recovery of consciousness (P = 0.001). The incidence of urinary tract symptoms on POD1 was lower in Group C (P = 0.043). There were no significant differences in time to spontaneous breathing recovery, extubation, recovery room stay, time to first ambulation, hospital stay, patient satisfaction, or other adverse events.

Conclusion: Ciprofol provides comparable early postoperative recovery to Propofol during ureteroscopy and may be a preferable alternative for urological procedures, especially in patients with blood pressure concerns.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400082736).

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Drug Design, Development and Therapy CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

382

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Drug Design, Development and Therapy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that spans the spectrum of drug design, discovery and development through to clinical applications. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of high-quality original research, reviews, expert opinions, commentary and clinical studies in all therapeutic areas. Specific topics covered by the journal include: Drug target identification and validation Phenotypic screening and target deconvolution Biochemical analyses of drug targets and their pathways New methods or relevant applications in molecular/drug design and computer-aided drug discovery* Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel biologically active compounds (including diagnostics or chemical probes) Structural or molecular biological studies elucidating molecular recognition processes Fragment-based drug discovery Pharmaceutical/red biotechnology Isolation, structural characterization, (bio)synthesis, bioengineering and pharmacological evaluation of natural products** Distribution, pharmacokinetics and metabolic transformations of drugs or biologically active compounds in drug development Drug delivery and formulation (design and characterization of dosage forms, release mechanisms and in vivo testing) Preclinical development studies Translational animal models Mechanisms of action and signalling pathways Toxicology Gene therapy, cell therapy and immunotherapy Personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics Clinical drug evaluation Patient safety and sustained use of medicines.