Efficacy and safety of HSK3486 for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in elective surgical patients: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, propofol-controlled phase 2 clinical trial

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.

METHODS

This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.

Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol Combined With Sufentanil for Inhibiting the Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Placement Reaction in Elderly Patients

Objective

Ciprofol is a new sedative anesthetic drug that can be used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and induction of general anesthesia, but the appropriate dosage for use in elderly patients has not been determined. Sufentanil is a commonly used opioid in clinical practice, and this study was designed to induce anesthesia in elderly patients using sufentanil in combination with ciprofol. However, the optimal dosage of ciprofol when it is co-administered with sufentanil has not yet been established. This study was designed to find the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of ciprofol for intravenous anesthesia when combined with sufentanil.

Methods

We studied 57 patients who were scheduled to undergo a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. According to age, it was divided into two groups: 65∼74 years old (group A) and over 75 years old (group B). Using the modified Dixon sequence test method, intravenous bolus of 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil was given 3 min before ciprofol is administered, the initial dose of ciprofol was 0.4 mg/kg, the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was placed after reaching the depth of sedation, and vital signs and adverse events were recorded at each perioperative time point (T0-T7).

Results

In the group A, when combined with 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil, the ED50 of ciprofol to inhibiting responses to insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was 0.23 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.09∼0.30 mg/kg; in the group B, the ED50 was 0.18 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.13∼0.22 mg/kg.

Conclusion

The ED50 of ciprofol in combination with sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: 0.23 mg/kg in group A and 0.18 mg/kg in group B.

The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ciprofol is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. However, whether it is superior to propofol and its optimal dose remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 149 patients, 63 males and 86 females, aged 18-80 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m², ASA I-III, were divided randomly into four groups: propofol group (group P, n = 44), ciprofol 0.2mg/kg group (group C2, n = 38), ciprofol 0.3mg/kg group (group C3, n = 36) and ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg group (group C4, n = 31). Groups C2, C3 and C4 had injected IV with ciprofol 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg/kg, respectively. Group P had injected IV with propofol 1.5mg/kg. The time for disappearance of the eyelash reflex, gastrointestinal endoscopy time, recovery time, and the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score at awakening (T₁), 15 minutes after awakening (T₂) and 30 minutes after awakening (T₃) were recorded.

Results

Compared with group P, the time to fall asleep was significantly shortened, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting and injection pain was significantly lower in groups C2, C3 and C4 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in recovery time and recovery quality between each group (P > 0.05). Compared with group P and C4, the incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression was significantly lower in groups C2 and C3 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The appropriate dose of ciprofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is more advantageous than propofol in hemodynamics and respiratory stability, with less injection pain and nausea and vomiting, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation/Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy.

Methods

A total of 149 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Group C received an induction dose of ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 0.6-1.2 mg/kg/h to maintain BIS value between 40-60. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0-6.0 mg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the successful rate of hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes included the change of hemodynamic, respiratory adverse events, injection pain, body movement, recovery time, anesthetist's satisfaction, time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Results

The success rate of hysteroscopy in each group was 100%. After drug administration, the incidence of hypotension in Group C was much lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group C (4.0%) was much lower than that in Group P (31.1%) (P< 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and body movement in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The mean eyelash reflex disappearance time was less than 3 minutes in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in awakening times, anesthetist's satisfaction and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No serious adverse events occurred in any patients.

Conclusion

Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative to propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. In comparison to propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less impact on hemodynamics, and results in less respiratory depression.

Ciprofol: A Novel Alternative to Propofol in Clinical Intravenous Anesthesia?

Ciprofol is a novel compound that was independently developed in China. According to the Chinese product instructions approved by the China National Medical Products Administration and the information of official website, indications for ciprofol include sedation and anesthesia during the surgical/procedure of nontracheal intubation, induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, and sedation during intensive care. Ciprofol is a short-acting intravenous sedative based on the structural modification of propofol. Ciprofol has high efficacy, good selectivity, and fewer adverse reactions, indicating good clinical application potential. A series of clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate the sedative effect of ciprofol in various procedures and settings, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy, fiber-optic bronchoscopy, general anesthesia in elective surgeries, and mechanical ventilation in intensive care units. This review summarizes the chemical structure, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetic properties of ciprofol. We also assessed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol by synthesizing the relevant clinical trial data.