Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Ciprofol has been investigated as a potential alternative to propofol for anesthesia because of its tendency to depress the respiratory and circulatory systems to a lesser extent and its association with less pain during injection. However, the relative potency of these two intravenous anesthetics has not been fully determined.</p> Methods <p>In this randomized double-blind trial, 232 patients undergoing elective hysteroscopy were allocated to 8 groups (<i>n</i> = 29 each) receiving ciprofol (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5&#xa0;mg/kg) or propofol (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5&#xa0;mg/kg) as a single intravenous bolus. Dose-response relationships were analyzed using probit regression to estimate ED50(dose giving a 50% response) and ED95(dose giving a 95% response) and nonlinear regression (sigmoidal Emax model) to validate curve fitting. The primary endpoint was the success rates of anesthesia induction (MOAA/S ≤1 within 2 min).</p> Results <p>Data from 230 patients were available for analysis. The ED95 of ciprofol [0.53 mg/kg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.48–0.60] was non-overlapping with propofol (2.16 mg/kg, 95% CI 1.96–2.45), confirming the relative potency ratio for the two drugs 4.1 (95% CI 2.4–9.0). Ciprofol showed significantly lower incidences of injection pain (0% vs. 34.5%, <i>P</i>&lt;0.01) and respiratory depression (27.6% vs. 55.2%, <i>P</i>&lt;0.05) at doses around the ED50.</p> Conclusion <p>Ciprofol demonstrated a 4.1:1.0 potency ratio over propofol with superior safety in patients undergoing painless hysteroscopy, supporting its use as an alternative for brief procedures requiring rapid anesthesia induction and recovery.</p> Trial registration <p>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier ChiCTR2200059853, May 13, 2022.</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

Comparison of the potency-ratio of ciprofol and propofol on sedative effects in painless hysteroscopy: a randomized double-blind dose-response study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月31日

查看全文
  • Yu Zhang,
  • Xiaoping Chen,
  • Lin Jin,
  • Xinzhong Chen,
  • Xiaowei Qian

摘要

Purpose

Ciprofol has been investigated as a potential alternative to propofol for anesthesia because of its tendency to depress the respiratory and circulatory systems to a lesser extent and its association with less pain during injection. However, the relative potency of these two intravenous anesthetics has not been fully determined.

Methods

In this randomized double-blind trial, 232 patients undergoing elective hysteroscopy were allocated to 8 groups (n = 29 each) receiving ciprofol (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 mg/kg) as a single intravenous bolus. Dose-response relationships were analyzed using probit regression to estimate ED50(dose giving a 50% response) and ED95(dose giving a 95% response) and nonlinear regression (sigmoidal Emax model) to validate curve fitting. The primary endpoint was the success rates of anesthesia induction (MOAA/S ≤1 within 2 min).

Results

Data from 230 patients were available for analysis. The ED95 of ciprofol [0.53 mg/kg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.48–0.60] was non-overlapping with propofol (2.16 mg/kg, 95% CI 1.96–2.45), confirming the relative potency ratio for the two drugs 4.1 (95% CI 2.4–9.0). Ciprofol showed significantly lower incidences of injection pain (0% vs. 34.5%, P<0.01) and respiratory depression (27.6% vs. 55.2%, P<0.05) at doses around the ED50.

Conclusion

Ciprofol demonstrated a 4.1:1.0 potency ratio over propofol with superior safety in patients undergoing painless hysteroscopy, supporting its use as an alternative for brief procedures requiring rapid anesthesia induction and recovery.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier ChiCTR2200059853, May 13, 2022.