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}
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).
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.