异丙酚和丙泊酚对结肠镜检查患者的疗效和安全性:双盲随机对照试验

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Shi-Hui Gao , Qian-Qian Tang , Chang-Ming Wang , Zhan-Ying Guan , Ling-Ling Wang , Jing Zhang , Zeng-Long Yan
{"title":"异丙酚和丙泊酚对结肠镜检查患者的疗效和安全性:双盲随机对照试验","authors":"Shi-Hui Gao ,&nbsp;Qian-Qian Tang ,&nbsp;Chang-Ming Wang ,&nbsp;Zhan-Ying Guan ,&nbsp;Ling-Ling Wang ,&nbsp;Jing Zhang ,&nbsp;Zeng-Long Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomized clinical trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m<sup>−2</sup> patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>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%, <em>P</em> = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, <em>P</em> = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, <em>P</em> = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, <em>P</em> = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 111474"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Shi-Hui Gao ,&nbsp;Qian-Qian Tang ,&nbsp;Chang-Ming Wang ,&nbsp;Zhan-Ying Guan ,&nbsp;Ling-Ling Wang ,&nbsp;Jing Zhang ,&nbsp;Zeng-Long Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomized clinical trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m<sup>−2</sup> patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>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%, <em>P</em> = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, <em>P</em> = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, <em>P</em> = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, <em>P</em> = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"volume\":\"95 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111474\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095281802400103X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095281802400103X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的异丙酚是无痛结肠镜检查中常用的麻醉剂,但由于其潜在的副作用(包括心肺抑制和注射疼痛),其使用偶尔会受到限制。为了解决这一局限性,有人提出用新型化合物环丙酚来替代异丙酚。本研究旨在确定异丙酚和环丙酚用于无痛结肠镜检查的安全性和有效性是否存在差异。干预措施按 1:1 的比例随机分配连续患者,让他们接受环丙酚(C 组)或丙泊酚(P 组)的结肠镜检查镇静剂。次要结果为镇静开始时间、手术时间、恢复时间和出院时间、患者和内镜医师满意度、副作用(如注射疼痛、肌阵挛、嗜睡、头晕、手术回忆、恶心和呕吐)以及心肺不良事件发生率。主要结果两组结肠镜检查的成功率无明显差异(环丙酚 96.3% 对丙泊酚 97.6%;平均差异 - 1.2%,95% CI:-6.5% 至 4.0%,P = 0.650)。然而,C 组的镇静时间(63.4 秒对 54.8 秒,P = 0.001)和完全警觉时间(9 分钟对 8 分钟,P = 0.013)更长,注射疼痛(0 对 40.2%,P = 0.001)、呼吸抑制(2.4% 对 13.4%,P = 0.021)和低血压(65.9% 对 80.5%,P = 0.034)的发生率也更低。结论异丙酚可独立用于结肠镜检查。在比较环丙酚和异丙酚的镇静效果时,0.4 mg kg-1 剂量的环丙酚与 2.0 mg kg-1 剂量的异丙酚效果相当,而且副作用更小,患者在手术过程中的满意度更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
×
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