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
  • [41] Clinical efficacy of xenon versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xia, Yimeng
    Fang, Hongwei
    Xu, Jindong
    Jia, Chenfei
    Tao, Guorong
    Yu, Buwei
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (20)
  • [42] Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in critical care patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Constantin, Jean-Michel
    Momon, Aurelien
    Mantz, Jean
    Payen, Jean-Francois
    De Jonghe, Bernard
    Perbet, Sebastien
    Cayot, Sophie
    Chanques, Gerald
    Perreira, Bruno
    ANAESTHESIA CRITICAL CARE & PAIN MEDICINE, 2016, 35 (01) : 7 - 15
  • [43] The efficacy of randomised controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for perfectionism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Galloway, Ricky
    Watson, Hunna
    Greene, Danyelle
    Shafran, Roz
    Egan, Sarah J.
    COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY, 2022, 51 (02) : 170 - 184
  • [44] Efficacy and safety of thalidomide for recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Jian, Yang
    Wang, Fuqin
    Zhao, Minru
    Han, Xianru
    Wang, Xiaoyu
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01):
  • [45] Efficacy and Safety of Oncolytic Viruses in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Li, Zengbin
    Jiang, Zeju
    Zhang, Yingxuan
    Huang, Xiaotian
    Liu, Qiong
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (06)
  • [46] Comparing general anaesthesia versus sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Leung, Choy -May
    Hui, Rex Wan-Hin
    ANAESTHESIOLOGY INTENSIVE THERAPY, 2023, 55 (01) : 9 - 17
  • [47] Relative Efficacy and Safety of Tanezumab for Osteoarthritis A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials
    Zhang, Bocheng
    Tian, Xiaoyuan
    Qu, Zhenan
    Liu, Jiaming
    Yang, Liang
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2021, 37 (12) : 914 - 924
  • [48] A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of the Baska mask versus other laryngeal mask airways during general anaesthesia
    Fadlalmola, Hammad Ali
    Elhusein, Amal Mohamed
    Osman, Abdalla Mohamed
    Balola, Hamza Hosean
    Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed
    Babiker, Sitelgeel Hamouda
    Ghoneim, Nagwa Ibrahim
    Ebrahim, Raga Abdelfatah
    Ali, Maha Abdalla
    Mohammed, Amani Abdelgader
    Eshag, Ghada Siddig
    Mohamed, Sara Elsadig
    Shaaeldein, Farida Rahamtalla
    Al-Sayaghi, Khaled Mohammed
    JOURNAL OF PERIOPERATIVE PRACTICE, 2024, 34 (12) : 384 - 393
  • [49] Efficacy of intravenous nalbuphine for managing post-anaesthesia shivering: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis
    Nair, Abhijit
    Dudhedia, Ujjwalraj
    Rangaiah, Manamohan
    Panchawagh, Suhrud
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 67 (10) : 853 - +
  • [50] Efficacy and safety of using cilostazol versus aspirin in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials
    Zhuang, Ping
    Huang, Yi-min
    Zheng, Zhenyong
    Zhang, Xiaodie
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2025, 55 (03) : 483 - 492