西哌泊酚用于老年患者无痛消化内镜检查的安全性和有效性:一项随机、双盲、非效性试验。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Qingqin Xu, Jingdong Zhang, Xiaoyan Yan, Xin Qiao, Wenxiu Zhu, Jingxing Chen, Yun Xue, Wenchao Zhang
{"title":"西哌泊酚用于老年患者无痛消化内镜检查的安全性和有效性:一项随机、双盲、非效性试验。","authors":"Qingqin Xu, Jingdong Zhang, Xiaoyan Yan, Xin Qiao, Wenxiu Zhu, Jingxing Chen, Yun Xue, Wenchao Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12877-025-06414-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cipepofol, a novel anesthetic agent, may offer advantages for older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach compared to a combination of etomidate and propofol (EP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"25 1","pages":"748"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.\",\"authors\":\"Qingqin Xu, Jingdong Zhang, Xiaoyan Yan, Xin Qiao, Wenxiu Zhu, Jingxing Chen, Yun Xue, Wenchao Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12877-025-06414-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cipepofol, a novel anesthetic agent, may offer advantages for older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach compared to a combination of etomidate and propofol (EP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"748\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06414-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06414-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:西泊酚是一种新型麻醉剂,可能为老年患者进行无痛消化内镜检查提供优势。本研究评估了该方法与依托咪酯和异丙酚(EP)联合使用的安全性和有效性。方法:在这项单中心、双盲、随机、非效性试验中,120例接受无痛胃镜或结肠镜检查的老年患者(65-90岁)随机接受西哌泊酚(0.3-0.4 mg/kg, n = 60)或EP(1:1比例,0.15-0.2 mL/kg, n = 60)。主要结局包括镇静持续时间。次要结局评估镇静成功、恢复时间、出院准备、不良事件和血流动力学稳定性。结果:所有患者镇静成功(100%)。西哌泊酚组和EP组的初始镇静时间相当(8.73 [5.10,10.18]vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] min; p = 0.165)。恢复时间相似(5.49 [3.51,7.62]vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] min, p = 0.819),而西哌泊酚组出院准备时间更快(1.67 [0.78,2.38]vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] min, p = 0.002)。不良事件,包括低血压、心动过缓和缺氧,具有可比性。只有EP组出现注射痛(5%)。结论:老年患者行无痛消化内镜检查时,西哌泊酚在镇静时间和安全性上不逊色于依托咪酯-异丙酚联合用药。它还具有稳定血流动力学的特点和优点,包括减少注射疼痛和更短的时间达到出院标准,为临床实践提供了简化的选择。试验注册号:ChiCTR2400088889,注册日期:2024-08-28,https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Background: Cipepofol, a novel anesthetic agent, may offer advantages for older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach compared to a combination of etomidate and propofol (EP).

Methods: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.

Results: All patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).

Conclusion: In older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.

Trial registration: ChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .

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 Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信