Scholarlink

Background <p>While propofol remains widely used for endoscopic sedation, its cardiovascular depression and injection pain limitations have prompted exploration of novel agents (remimazolam, ciprofol). This study aimed to compare their safety and efficacy profiles systematically.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate remimazolam, ciprofol, and propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Bayesian random-effects models were used to estimate relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% credible intervals(CrI).</p> Results <p>Forty-two randomized controlled trials (<i>N</i> = 10,540 patients) were included. Remimazolam demonstrated superior cardiovascular safety (RR = 0.44, 95%CrI 0.35–0.54 vs propofol) and lowest respiratory depression risk (RR = 0.36, 0.28–0.46). Propofol showed faster recovery (MD -14.22&#xa0;min, -2.35 to -30.83 vs remimazolam). Both remimazolam (RR = 0.045) and ciprofol (RR = 0.054) significantly reduced injection pain versus propofol.</p> Conclusion <p>Remimazolam should be prioritized for high-risk patients (cardiovascular/respiratory comorbidities) despite slightly longer recovery times. Propofol remains suitable for low-risk procedures requiring rapid turnover, while ciprofol offers balanced efficacy for endoscopy.</p> Trial Registration <p>The study was registered with the UK National Institute for Health Research's PROSPERO platform (CRD42024569405;<a href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/">https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/</a>).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam, ciprofol, and propofol anesthesia in endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月8日

查看全文
  • Siqi Zhou,
  • Shangchen Yu,
  • Yuan Bi,
  • Zhang Tian,
  • Ruochen Pan,
  • Tianqing Yan,
  • Jianbo Deng,
  • Aijun Xu

摘要

Background

While propofol remains widely used for endoscopic sedation, its cardiovascular depression and injection pain limitations have prompted exploration of novel agents (remimazolam, ciprofol). This study aimed to compare their safety and efficacy profiles systematically.

Methods

We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate remimazolam, ciprofol, and propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Bayesian random-effects models were used to estimate relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% credible intervals(CrI).

Results

Forty-two randomized controlled trials (N = 10,540 patients) were included. Remimazolam demonstrated superior cardiovascular safety (RR = 0.44, 95%CrI 0.35–0.54 vs propofol) and lowest respiratory depression risk (RR = 0.36, 0.28–0.46). Propofol showed faster recovery (MD -14.22 min, -2.35 to -30.83 vs remimazolam). Both remimazolam (RR = 0.045) and ciprofol (RR = 0.054) significantly reduced injection pain versus propofol.

Conclusion

Remimazolam should be prioritized for high-risk patients (cardiovascular/respiratory comorbidities) despite slightly longer recovery times. Propofol remains suitable for low-risk procedures requiring rapid turnover, while ciprofol offers balanced efficacy for endoscopy.

Trial Registration

The study was registered with the UK National Institute for Health Research's PROSPERO platform (CRD42024569405;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).