Guopeng Ding , Li Wang , Wantong Zhao , Yugang Diao , Dandan Song
{"title":"比较异丙酚和丙泊酚用于老年患者ERCP麻醉的有效性和安全性:单中心随机对照临床研究","authors":"Guopeng Ding , Li Wang , Wantong Zhao , Yugang Diao , Dandan Song","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objectives</h3><p>Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA<sub>A</sub>) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3–0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8–1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5–2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h).</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain).</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (− 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of −8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, <em>p</em> < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, <em>p</em> < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain.</p><p>Trial registration: <span><span>www.chictr.org.cn</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 111609"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002381/pdfft?md5=07e9244f3e48f9335440f009699cf2db&pid=1-s2.0-S0952818024002381-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for ERCP anesthesia in older patients: A single-center randomized controlled clinical study\",\"authors\":\"Guopeng Ding , Li Wang , Wantong Zhao , Yugang Diao , Dandan Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study objectives</h3><p>Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA<sub>A</sub>) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3–0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8–1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5–2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h).</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain).</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (− 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of −8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, <em>p</em> < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, <em>p</em> < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain.</p><p>Trial registration: <span><span>www.chictr.org.cn</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111609\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002381/pdfft?md5=07e9244f3e48f9335440f009699cf2db&pid=1-s2.0-S0952818024002381-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002381\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002381","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for ERCP anesthesia in older patients: A single-center randomized controlled clinical study
Study objectives
Ciprofol is a novel agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor, exhibiting better cardiovascular stability and rapid recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older patients.
Design
A single-center, randomized, parallel controlled clinical study.
Setting
General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.
Patients
We recruited 284 patients and intended to conduct ERCP from November 2021 to June 2022.
Interventions
Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 142 each): ciprofol group (anesthesia induction 0.3–0.4 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 0.8–1.2 mg/kg/h) and propofol group (anesthesia induction 1.5–2.0 mg/kg, anesthesia maintenance 4-12 mg/kg/h).
Measurements
The primary outcome was sedation success rate, defined as the proportion of patients with successful anesthesia induction. Secondary outcomes encompassed the time of successful induction, the time of complete recovery, the time of leaving the room and the incidence rate of adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension and injection pain).
Main results
The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100 %. The 95 % CI of the difference of sedation success rate was (− 2.63 %, 2.63 %), and the lower limit was greater than the non-inferiority limit of −8 %.The time of successful sedation induction in ciprofol group (38.4 ± 6.5 s) was longer than that in propofol group (30.6 ± 6.2 s, p < 0.05).The time of complete recovery in ciprofol group (12.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than that in propofol group (16.9 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.05). The time of leaving the room in ciprofol group (21.8 ± 5.8 min) was shorter than those in propofol group (25.9 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain in ciprofol group (2 %) was lower than that in the propofol group (25 %, p < 0.05). Other outcomes didn't show statistical differences.
Conclusions
Compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited a comparable level of sedation in older patients undergoing ERCP, and recovery was safe and rapid with less injection pain.
Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2100053386, Registration date November 20, 2021).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained.
The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.