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 , Qian-Qian Tang , Chang-Ming Wang , Zhan-Ying Guan , Ling-Ling Wang , Jing Zhang , 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> < 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> < 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> < 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 , Qian-Qian Tang , Chang-Ming Wang , Zhan-Ying Guan , Ling-Ling Wang , Jing Zhang , 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> < 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> < 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> < 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}
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.
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.