{"title":"环丙酚与异丙酚在胃肠道内窥镜中的镇静作用:中国人群的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hongyu Yang, Ping Lai, Xiaoyu Qin, Yiyang Cui, Xiaojia Zhang, Haiqing Zhang, Yichen Ding, Ersheng Ye, Yaping Wu, Bingxu Ren","doi":"10.2147/DDDT.S522678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic structurally similar to propofol; however, its advantages over propofol remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and satisfaction outcomes of ciprofol and propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This systematic review incorporated all available comparative trials assessing ciprofol versus propofol for endoscopic sedation following a comprehensive search strategy across eight biomedical databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, along with major Chinese repositories (CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP)-through September 2023. Evidence synthesis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, with methodological rigor enhanced through prospective trial registry screening and implementation of GRADE framework for evidence grading.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 45 randomized controlled trials involving 6884 patients who met predefined methodological and clinical eligibility thresholds. Very low to moderate certainty evidence showed that ciprofol induced sedation or anesthesia comparable to that of propofol (relative risk [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.01), with both agents demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. Furthermore, ciprofol was associated with a reduced incidence of complications, including hypotension (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.70), bradycardia (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.85), nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.84), hypoxia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.48), respiratory depression (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.56), apnea (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.53), and injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.17), while also enhancing patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ciprofol-induced sedation or anesthesia was comparable to propofol, with both drugs demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. However, ciprofol was associated with lower risk of adverse reactions and higher satisfaction among patients and anesthesiologists. Ciprofol may represent a superior sedative option for gastrointestinal endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11290,"journal":{"name":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","volume":"19 ","pages":"5369-5385"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12207532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in a Chinese Population.\",\"authors\":\"Hongyu Yang, Ping Lai, Xiaoyu Qin, Yiyang Cui, Xiaojia Zhang, Haiqing Zhang, Yichen Ding, Ersheng Ye, Yaping Wu, Bingxu Ren\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/DDDT.S522678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic structurally similar to propofol; however, its advantages over propofol remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and satisfaction outcomes of ciprofol and propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This systematic review incorporated all available comparative trials assessing ciprofol versus propofol for endoscopic sedation following a comprehensive search strategy across eight biomedical databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, along with major Chinese repositories (CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP)-through September 2023. Evidence synthesis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, with methodological rigor enhanced through prospective trial registry screening and implementation of GRADE framework for evidence grading.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 45 randomized controlled trials involving 6884 patients who met predefined methodological and clinical eligibility thresholds. Very low to moderate certainty evidence showed that ciprofol induced sedation or anesthesia comparable to that of propofol (relative risk [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.01), with both agents demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. Furthermore, ciprofol was associated with a reduced incidence of complications, including hypotension (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.70), bradycardia (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.85), nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.84), hypoxia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.48), respiratory depression (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.56), apnea (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.53), and injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.17), while also enhancing patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ciprofol-induced sedation or anesthesia was comparable to propofol, with both drugs demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. However, ciprofol was associated with lower risk of adverse reactions and higher satisfaction among patients and anesthesiologists. Ciprofol may represent a superior sedative option for gastrointestinal endoscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"5369-5385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12207532/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S522678\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S522678","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}
Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in a Chinese Population.
Purpose: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic structurally similar to propofol; however, its advantages over propofol remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and satisfaction outcomes of ciprofol and propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Patients and methods: This systematic review incorporated all available comparative trials assessing ciprofol versus propofol for endoscopic sedation following a comprehensive search strategy across eight biomedical databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, along with major Chinese repositories (CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP)-through September 2023. Evidence synthesis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, with methodological rigor enhanced through prospective trial registry screening and implementation of GRADE framework for evidence grading.
Results: This systematic review included 45 randomized controlled trials involving 6884 patients who met predefined methodological and clinical eligibility thresholds. Very low to moderate certainty evidence showed that ciprofol induced sedation or anesthesia comparable to that of propofol (relative risk [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.01), with both agents demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. Furthermore, ciprofol was associated with a reduced incidence of complications, including hypotension (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.70), bradycardia (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.85), nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.84), hypoxia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.48), respiratory depression (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.56), apnea (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.53), and injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.17), while also enhancing patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction.
Conclusion: Ciprofol-induced sedation or anesthesia was comparable to propofol, with both drugs demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. However, ciprofol was associated with lower risk of adverse reactions and higher satisfaction among patients and anesthesiologists. Ciprofol may represent a superior sedative option for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
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.