Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

被引:2
|
作者
Saeed, Abdallah [1 ]
Elewidi, Mariam [1 ]
Nawlo, Ahmad [2 ]
Elzahaby, Amr [1 ]
Khaled, Asmaa [1 ]
Othman, Abdalla [1 ]
Abuelazm, Mohamed [1 ]
Abdelazeem, Basel [3 ]
机构
[1] Tanta Univ, Fac Med, El Bahr St, Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Infect Dis, Boston, MA USA
[3] West Virginia Univ, Dept Cardiol, Morgantown, WV USA
关键词
Ciprofol; general anaesthesia; meta-analysis; pain; propofol; sedation; systematic review; PARALLEL-GROUP; SINGLE-BLIND; MULTICENTER; MAINTENANCE; PHASE-3;
D O I
10.4103/ija.ija_104_24
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and Aims: Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures. Methods: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; P = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; P < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.
引用
收藏
页码:776 / 794
页数:32
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT)
    Akhtar, Syed Muhammad Muneeb
    Fareed, Areeba
    Ali, Mirha
    Khan, Muhammad Sohaib
    Ali, Abraish
    Mumtaz, Munazza
    Kirchoff, Robert
    Asghar, Muhammad Sohaib
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2024, 94
  • [2] A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation
    Hung, Kuo-Chuan
    Chen, Jen-Yin
    Wu, Shao-Chun
    Huang, Po-Yu
    Wu, Jheng-Yan
    Liu, Ting-Hui
    Liu, Chien-Cheng
    Chen, I-Wen
    Sun, Cheuk-Kwan
    FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [3] Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta-analysis
    Ainiwaer, Dilireba
    Jiang, Wanwei
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [4] Efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) for procedural sedation and anesthesia induction in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wen, Jiaxuan
    Liu, Chen
    Ding, Xueying
    Tian, Zimeng
    Jiang, Wenyu
    Wei, Xiuhong
    Liu, Xin
    HELIYON, 2023, 9 (12)
  • [5] Ciprofol as compared to propofol for sedation and general anesthesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Curro, Jessica M.
    Santonocito, Cristina
    Merola, Federica
    Messina, Simone
    Sanfilippo, Marco
    Brancati, Serena
    Drago, Filippo
    Sanfilippo, Filippo
    JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA ANALGESIA AND CRITICAL CARE, 2024, 4 (01):
  • [6] Postoperative delirium under general anaesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Suga, Masafumi
    Yasuhara, Jun
    Watanabe, Atsuyuki
    Takagi, Hisato
    Kuno, Toshiki
    Nishimura, Takeshi
    Ijuin, Shinichi
    Taira, Takuya
    Inoue, Akihiko
    Ishihara, Satoshi
    Pakavakis, Adrian
    Glassford, Neil
    Shehabi, Yahya
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2025, 101
  • [7] Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis (vol 4, 25, 2024)
    Hudaib, Muhammad
    Malik, Hurais
    Zakir, Syeda Javeria
    Rabbani, Samra
    Gnanendran, Dhanushan
    Syed, Abdul Rehman Shah
    Suri, Noor Fatima
    Khan, Javeria
    Iqbal, Arham
    Hussain, Nowal
    Abdullah, Muhammad
    Kumar, Satesh
    Khatri, Mahima
    Varrassi, Giustino
    JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA ANALGESIA AND CRITICAL CARE, 2024, 4 (01):
  • [8] Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in sedating patients in the operating room and outside the operating room: a meta-analysis and systematic review
    Yang, Yanni
    Lang, Zekun
    Wang, Xiumei
    Yang, Peining
    Meng, Ning
    Xing, Yang
    Liu, Yatao
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01):
  • [9] The safety and efficacy of remimazolam, ciprofol, and propofol anesthesia in endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Siqi Zhou
    Shangchen Yu
    Yuan Bi
    Zhang Tian
    Ruochen Pan
    Tianqing Yan
    Jianbo Deng
    Aijun Xu
    BMC Anesthesiology, 25 (1)
  • [10] Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis
    Cheng, Xi
    Zhang, Pengyu
    Jiang, Dan
    Fang, Baoxia
    Chen, Fuchao
    BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2025, 25 (01)