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
  • [31] Efficacy and safety of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Su, Naichuan
    Li, Chunjie
    Wang, Hang
    Shen, Jiefei
    Liu, Wenjia
    Kou, Liang
    AUSTRALIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2016, 42 (01) : 4 - 15
  • [32] Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Lingyuan
    Liang, Xueyan
    Tan, Xinmei
    Wen, Haibin
    Jiang, Junsong
    Li, Yan
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (20)
  • [33] Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Guacho, John Alexander Lata
    de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux
    Ribeiro, Igor Braga
    da Ponte Neto, Alberto Machado
    Singh, Shailendra
    Tucci, Marina Gammaro Baldavira
    Bernardo, Wanderley Marques
    de Moura, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2020, 12 (08):
  • [34] Efficacy and Safety of Methylprednisolone for Lung Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Fu, Xi
    Ye, Xin
    An, Li-Na
    Jiang, Hua
    Huang, Wen-Bo
    Huang, Ya
    Dong, Jing
    Ren, Yi-Feng
    PAIN AND THERAPY, 2023, 12 (01) : 165 - 186
  • [35] The use of remimazolam versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ko, Ching-Chung
    Hung, Kuo-Chuan
    Illias, Amina M.
    Chiu, Chong-Chi
    Yu, Chia-Hung
    Lin, Chien-Ming
    Chen, I-Wen
    Sun, Cheuk-Kwan
    FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [36] Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam/propofol sedation reduces delirium in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Xing, Shunpeng
    Ding, Jia
    Wang, Jiemin
    Jiang, Tao
    He, Zhengyu
    Gao, Yuan
    Li, Wen
    Wen, Daxiang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2018, 11 (08): : 7727 - 7739
  • [37] Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy
    Lu, Yi
    Hao, Li-Xiao
    Chen, Lu
    Jin, Zheng
    Gong, Biao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2015, 8 (11): : 19793 - 19803
  • [38] The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis
    Xincan An
    Tianqi Shen
    Xingxing Yin
    Jin Xu
    Yongming Zhang
    Tianlong Wang
    BMC Anesthesiology, 24
  • [39] Impact of spinal anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia on perioperative outcome in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials
    Meng, T.
    Zhong, Z.
    Meng, L.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2017, 72 (03) : 391 - 401
  • [40] The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis
    An, Xincan
    Shen, Tianqi
    Yin, Xingxing
    Xu, Jin
    Zhang, Yongming
    Wang, Tianlong
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01)