在心脏手术麻醉诱导中使用 Ciprofol 与 Propofol:随机双盲对照临床试验。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Le Yu, Xiang Liu, Xiang Zhao, Xiu Shan, Evelyne Bischof, Hui-Hong Lu
{"title":"在心脏手术麻醉诱导中使用 Ciprofol 与 Propofol:随机双盲对照临床试验。","authors":"Le Yu, Xiang Liu, Xiang Zhao, Xiu Shan, Evelyne Bischof, Hui-Hong Lu","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02795-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ciprofol, a novel intravenous general anesthetic with a chemical structure similar to propofol, exhibits significantly enhanced potency. It offers a rapid onset, reduced incidence of injection pain, and has comparable effects on heart rate and blood pressure to propofol. However, clinical data on its use for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-eight patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (N = 40) or propofol (N = 38) for anesthesia induction. Variables recorded included changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia, alterations in the oxygenation index and lactic acid concentration before and 10 min after anesthesia induction, and the incidence of adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, and injection pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of anesthesia-induced injection pain was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to the propofol group (3% vs. 18%, P < 0.05). The incidence of other adverse events was similar between the groups. No significant differences in hemodynamics or oxygenation index were observed during anesthesia induction between ciprofol and propofol.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ciprofol demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of injection pain compared to propofol, potentially improving patient comfort during anesthesia induction. Additionally, ciprofol showed comparable circulatory stability to propofol during anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative to propofol for this application.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 03/10/2024 (NCT06312345).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"24 1","pages":"412"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556191/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Le Yu, Xiang Liu, Xiang Zhao, Xiu Shan, Evelyne Bischof, Hui-Hong Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-024-02795-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ciprofol, a novel intravenous general anesthetic with a chemical structure similar to propofol, exhibits significantly enhanced potency. It offers a rapid onset, reduced incidence of injection pain, and has comparable effects on heart rate and blood pressure to propofol. However, clinical data on its use for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-eight patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (N = 40) or propofol (N = 38) for anesthesia induction. Variables recorded included changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia, alterations in the oxygenation index and lactic acid concentration before and 10 min after anesthesia induction, and the incidence of adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, and injection pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of anesthesia-induced injection pain was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to the propofol group (3% vs. 18%, P < 0.05). The incidence of other adverse events was similar between the groups. No significant differences in hemodynamics or oxygenation index were observed during anesthesia induction between ciprofol and propofol.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ciprofol demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of injection pain compared to propofol, potentially improving patient comfort during anesthesia induction. Additionally, ciprofol showed comparable circulatory stability to propofol during anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative to propofol for this application.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 03/10/2024 (NCT06312345).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"412\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556191/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02795-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02795-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:异丙酚是一种新型静脉注射全身麻醉剂,其化学结构与异丙酚相似,但药效明显增强。它起效迅速,减少了注射疼痛,对心率和血压的影响与异丙酚相当。然而,将其用于心脏手术麻醉诱导的临床数据仍然有限:方法:78 名接受冠状动脉旁路移植或瓣膜置换手术的患者被随机分配到接受环丙酚(40 人)或异丙酚(38 人)麻醉诱导。记录的变量包括麻醉期间平均动脉压和心率的变化、麻醉诱导前和麻醉诱导后 10 分钟氧合指数和乳酸浓度的变化,以及心动过缓、低血压和注射疼痛等不良事件的发生率:结果:与异丙酚组相比,环丙酚组麻醉诱导注射疼痛的发生率明显降低(3% 对 18%,P 结论:环丙酚组的注射疼痛发生率明显低于异丙酚组,P与异丙酚相比,环丙酚的注射疼痛发生率明显降低,这有可能改善麻醉诱导期间患者的舒适度。此外,在心脏手术麻醉诱导过程中,环丙酚显示出与异丙酚相当的循环稳定性,这表明环丙酚可能是异丙酚的合适替代品:该试验于 2024 年 10 月 3 日在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册(NCT06312345)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.

Background: Ciprofol, a novel intravenous general anesthetic with a chemical structure similar to propofol, exhibits significantly enhanced potency. It offers a rapid onset, reduced incidence of injection pain, and has comparable effects on heart rate and blood pressure to propofol. However, clinical data on its use for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery remain limited.

Methods: Seventy-eight patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (N = 40) or propofol (N = 38) for anesthesia induction. Variables recorded included changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia, alterations in the oxygenation index and lactic acid concentration before and 10 min after anesthesia induction, and the incidence of adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, and injection pain.

Results: The incidence of anesthesia-induced injection pain was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to the propofol group (3% vs. 18%, P < 0.05). The incidence of other adverse events was similar between the groups. No significant differences in hemodynamics or oxygenation index were observed during anesthesia induction between ciprofol and propofol.

Conclusions: Ciprofol demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of injection pain compared to propofol, potentially improving patient comfort during anesthesia induction. Additionally, ciprofol showed comparable circulatory stability to propofol during anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative to propofol for this application.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 03/10/2024 (NCT06312345).

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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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