Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of a Single Bolus of the γ-aminobutyric Acid (GABA) Receptor Potentiator HSK3486 in Healthy Chinese Elderly and Non-elderly

Pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety relationship of ciprofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a newly developed, highly selective γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor potentiator that is recently approved for a new indication of sedation for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) in China. This analysis aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (PopPKs) of ciprofol and evaluate the relationship of exposure with hypotension in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. A total of 462 subjects with 3918 concentration measurements from two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, four clinical trials of elective surgical patients, and six clinical trials of healthy subjects were used in the PopPK analysis. Exposure-safety relationship for hypotension was evaluated based on the data gathered from 112 subjects in two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics (PKs) was adequately described by a three-compartment linear disposition model with first-order elimination. Body weight, age, sex, blood sampling site (vein vs. arterial), study design (long-term infusion vs. short-term infusion), and patient population (ICU vs. non-ICU) were identified as statistically significant covariates on the PKs of ciprofol. Within the exposure range of the mechanically ventilated ICU patient population, no meaningful association was observed between ciprofol exposure and the incidence of hypotension. These results support the dosing regimen currently used in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.

Exploring the Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol for Anesthesia Induction in Elderly Patients: Impact of Frailty on ED50

Purpose

Explore the median effective dose of ciprofol for inducing loss of consciousness in elderly patients and investigate how frailty influences the ED50 of ciprofol in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

A total of 26 non-frail patients and 28 frail patients aged 65-78 years, with BMI ranging from 15 to 28 kg/m2, and classified as ASA grade II or III were selected. Patients were divided into two groups according to frailty: non-frail patients (CFS<4), frail patients (CFS≥4). With an initial dose of 0.3 mg/kg for elderly non-frail patients and 0.25 mg/kg for elderly frail patients, using the up-and-down Dixon method, and the next patient's dose was dependent on the previous patient's response. Demographic information, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean blood pressure (MBP), and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded every 30 seconds, starting from the initiation of drug administration and continuing up to 3 minutes post-administration. Additionally, the total ciprofol dosage during induction, occurrences of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain were recorded.

Results

The calculated ED50 (95% confidence interval [CI]) and ED95 (95% CI) values for ciprofol-induced loss of consciousness were as follows: 0.267 mg/kg (95% CI 0.250-0.284) and 0.301 mg/kg (95% CI 0.284-0.397) for elderly non-frail patients; and 0.263 mg/kg (95% CI 0.244-0.281) and 0.302 mg/kg (95% CI 0.283-0.412) for elderly frail patients. Importantly, no patients reported intravenous injection pain, required treatment for hypotension, or experienced significant bradycardia.

Conclusion

Frailty among elderly patients does not exert a notable impact on the median effective dose of ciprofol for anesthesia induction. Our findings suggest that anesthesiologists may forego the necessity of dosage adjustments when administering ciprofol for anesthesia induction in elderly frail patients.

Comparison of the Efficacy of HSK3486 and Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Phase 3 Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic associated with hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection-site pain. HSK3486 injectable emulsion (ciprofol) is a 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative with fast onset and quick, stable recovery. Previous studies support HSK3486 as an effective, safe anesthetic with substantially less injection-site pain than propofol. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful general anesthesia induction.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-five participants were enrolled in HSK3486-304, a multicenter, randomized (2:1), double-blind, propofol-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating HSK3486 for general anesthesia induction in adults undergoing elective surgery with tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was successful anesthesia induction, defined as 1 or less on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of participants with injection-site pain on the Numerical Rating Scale of 1 or greater and a composite endpoint, including the proportion of participants successfully induced while maintaining the desired anesthetic depth and without substantial cardiac and respiratory events. Safety endpoints included adverse events, abnormal vital signs, and injection-site pain.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-one participants (HSK3486, n = 168; propofol, n = 83) were included in the analyses. General anesthesia was successfully induced in 97.0% versus 97.6% of participants with HSK3486 and propofol, respectively. The difference in success rate was -0.57% (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.2%); the noninferiority boundary of -8% was not crossed. Thirty participants (18.0%) had injection-site pain with HSK3486 versus 64 (77.1%) with propofol (P < 0.0001). Eighty-one participants (48.2%) with HSK3486 versus 42 (50.6%) with propofol (P = 0.8780) satisfied the composite endpoint. When injection-site pain was excluded, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events related to study drug was 17.9% for HSK3486 and 14.5% for propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

The study met its primary objective and endpoint, demonstrating noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful anesthetic induction. Substantially less injection-site pain was associated with HSK3486 than with propofol.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

Regioselective 1,2-Alkylboration of Benzylidenecyclopropanes: Access to Csp3-Enriched Cyclopropyl Boronic Esters

We describe a novel, regioselective alkylboration of versatile (hetero)benzylidenecyclopropanes with β-H-containing alkyl iodides and bis(pinacolato)diboron enabled by copper catalysis. This three-component method allows for consecutive B-Csp3 and Csp3-Csp3 bond formation to access Csp3-enriched diverse tertiary cyclopropyl boronic esters with broad functionality tolerance, and the so-formed C-B bond is amenable to further structural diversification. Radical clock experiment, Hammett analysis, and DFT calculation suggest a mechanism of polar, rather than radical manifold, and SN2-type C-C bond formation was found to be the rate-limiting step instead of migratory alkene insertion.

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

METHODS

We included 25 patients aged 18-64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18-28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon's up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients' recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients' recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

The optimal induction dose of ciprofol combined with low-dose rocuronium in children undergoing daytime adenotonsillectomy

Adenotonsillectomy is the most common daytime surgery performed on children. Anesthesiologists must select the optimal combination of drugs to ensure effective anesthesia effect and prompt recovery in children. The optimal induction dose of ciprofol in children is unclear. In this study, we aim to investigate the effect of different doses of ciprofol on anesthesia induction in children undergoing daytime adenotonsillectomy and provide a reference for clinical use. 144 children aged 3-12 years, ASA I-II, undergoing daytime adenotonsillectomy, were included in this clinical trial. The children were randomly divided into three groups and given 0.4 mg/kg (C4), 0.6 mg/kg (C6), or 0.8 mg/kg (C8) of ciprofol for anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was intubation conditions. Vital signs and injection pain were also recorded. The rates of unacceptable intubation conditions were 30.6%, 8.7%, and 8.2% in the C4, C6, and C8 groups (P value < 0.0167). The overall incidence of reported injection pain was 3.5%. The heart rate and mean arterial pressure did not differ between the groups at the same time points. We found that combining 0.6 mg/kg of ciprofol with low-dose rocuronium could provide optimal intubation conditions in pediatric daytime adenotonsillectomy patients. This combination resulted in stable circulation and BIS values. This study is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2200063144, Date of Registration: 31/08/2022).

Drug-drug interaction of ciprofol injectable emulsion with mefenamic acid capsules in healthy subjects

AIMS

To investigate the drug-drug interaction (DDI) of ciprofol injectable emulsion and mefenamic acid capsules in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in this single-centre, open-label, two-period DDI study. Ciprofol (0.4 mg kg-1 ) was administered as a single dose on days 1 and 5. A 500-mg oral loading dose of mefenamic acid was given on day 4 followed by a 250-mg maintenance dose every 6 h (a total of eight doses). Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analyses were collected. Depth of anaesthesia was monitored using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale and Bispectral Index scores (BISs).

RESULTS

Compared with administration of ciprofol alone, administration with mefenamic acid showed no significant difference in exposure. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and their 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ), area under the plasma concentration-time curve calculated from 0 to the last measurement point (AUC0-last ) and AUC to infinity (AUC0-inf ) were 91.6% (86.5-96.9%), 103.3% (100.3-106.4%) and 107.0% (101.2-113.2%), respectively. The MOAA/S and BIS curves for the two treatment periods essentially coincided, indicating that the anaesthesia effect of ciprofol was not affected by mefenamic acid. Seven subjects (35%) reported eight adverse events (AEs) when ciprorol was administered alone and 12 subjects (60%) reported 18 AEs when ciprofol was administered in combination with mefenamic acid. All AEs were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Mefenamic acid, a UGT1A9 inhibitor, had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ciprofol in healthy subjects. Ciprofol was safe and well tolerated when administered with mefenamic acid.

Protective effects of combined treatment with ciprofol and mild therapeutic hypothermia during cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury

Despite improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance, cardiac arrest (CA) is still associated with poor prognosis. The high mortality rate is due to multi-organ dysfunction caused by cerebral ischemia and reperfusion injury (I/R). The guidelines for CPR suggest the use of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) as an effective treatment to decrease mortality and the only approach confirmed to reduce I/R injury. During TH, sedative agents (propofol) and analgesia agents (fentanyl) are commonly used to prevent shiver and pain. However, propofol has been associated with a number of serious adverse effects such as metabolic acidosis, cardiac asystole, myocardial failure, and death. In addition, mild TH alters the pharmacokinetics of agents (propofol and fentanyl) and reduces their systemic clearance. For CA patients undergoing TH, propofol can be overdosed, leading to delayed awakening, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and other subsequent complications. Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel anesthetic agent that is convenient and easy to administer intravenously outside the operating room. Ciprofol is rapidly metabolized and accumulates at low concentrations after continuous infusion in a stable circulatory system compared to propofol. Therefore, we hypothesized that treatment with HSK3486 and mild TH after CA could protect the brain and other organs.

Efficacy and safety of HSK3486 vs. propofol for the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

HSK3486 (ciprofol) is a 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative that acts like propofol as an agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA A ) receptor.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of HSK3486 for general anaesthesia induction and maintenance.

DESIGN

A single-blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

SETTING

Involving 10 study centres, from November 24, 2020 to January 25, 2021.

PATIENTS

A total of 129 patients undergoing nonemergency, noncardiothoracic, and nonbrain elective surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio into HSK3486 or propofol groups, to receive HSK3486 (0.4 mg kg -1 ) or propofol (2.0 mg kg -1 ) for induction before a maintenance infusion at initial rates of 0.8 and 5.0 mg kg -1 h -1 , and were adjusted to maintain a bispectral index (BIS) of 40-60 until the end of surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Noninferiority between the drugs was evaluated as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference in the success rate of anesthetic maintenance (primary outcome) >-8%. Secondary outcomes included successful anaesthetic induction, full alertness and spontaneous breathing recovery, time until leaving the postanaesthesia care unit and changes in BIS. Safety profiles were also measured.

RESULTS

Of 129 enrolled patients, 128 completed the trial, with 86 in the HSK3486 group and 42 in the propofol group. The success rate for the maintenance of general anaesthesia was 100% for both groups, and noninferiority of HSK3486 was confirmed (95% CI -4.28% to 8.38%). No significant differences were found between the two groups of patients with regard to secondary outcomes (all P  > 0.05). There appeared to be a comparable incidence of treatment for emergency adverse events (TEAEs) (80.2% vs. 81.0%, P  = 1.000) and drug-related TEAEs (57.0% vs. 64.3%, P  = 0.451) in the HSK3486 and propofol groups.

CONCLUSION

HSK3486 had a noninferior efficacy profile compared to propofol, exhibiting excellent tolerance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT04511728.

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.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil during fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Objective: Ciprofol is a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative that has improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with propofol. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Methods: Overall, 92 patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial and were equally divided into two groups (n = 46 each). Fentanyl (50 μg) was given 2 min before the intravenous infusion of 0.3 mg/kg of ciprofol or 1.2 mg/kg of propofol over a time period of 30 s. During anesthesia maintenance, 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min of remifentanil combined with one-third to one-fourth of the initial dose of ciprofol or propofol was repeated at 2-min intervals, as required, to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale score <3. The primary outcome was the successful rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics, time metrics, hemodynamics, coughing severity, intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, utilization of study drug doses, number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs) used, satisfaction scores of both patients and the endoscopist, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, patients' willing to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and occurrence and severity of adverse events. Results: The successful completion rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was 91.30% (42 of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.80%-99.80%) in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and 89.13% (41 of 46; 95% CI: 79.80%-98.50%) in the propofol-remifentanil group. Though the clinically acceptable intubating condition was improved in the ciprofol-remifentanil group, this difference has no clinical statistical difference (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to time metrics, consumption of fentanyl and remifentanil, or number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs). Patients' willingness to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy and the satisfaction of both patients and endoscopist were significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the propofol-remifentanil group, patients in the ciprofol-remifentanil group had more stable hemodynamics. The lowest oxygen saturation was significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). The numbers of patients who experienced pain on injection in the ciprofol-remifentanil group was significantly lower than the number in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.01). Severity of coughing, clinically acceptable severity of coughing, incidence of intraoperative awareness, and other adverse events were all similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Only four patients experienced grade 2 adverse events (severe hypotension in one patient in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and three patients in the propofol-remifentanil group; p > 0.05); they were treated with noradrenaline. Conclusion: Ciprofol-remifentanil was non-inferior to propofol-remifentanil with regard to successful sedation for flexible bronchoscopy, when used with pre-intravenous administration of 50 μg of fentanyl. At the same time, patients' willingness to repeat flexible bronchoscopy and the satisfactions were all significantly improved.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a novel γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor potentiator, HSK3486, in Chinese patients with hepatic impairment

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to investigate if hepatic impairment alters the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of HSK3486.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a clinical trial of HSK3486 in subjects with normal hepatic function (n = 8), and mild (Child-Pugh A; n = 8), or moderate (Child-Pugh B; n = 8) hepatic impairment. Each subject received an IV bolus dose of 0.4 mg/kg HSK3486 for 1 min, immediately followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.4 mg/kg/h HSK3486 for 30 min.

RESULTS

In total, 24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. HSK3486 was generally well tolerated by all subjects. There were no serious AEs and no deaths reported during the study. The incidence of AEs was numerically highest in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment. The exposure (AUC) of HSK3486 increased gradually with the decrease in hepatic function; however, degree of hepatic impairment had little effect on HSK3486 PD (MOAA/S and BIS).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there were no clinically relevant differences in HSK3486 exposure or PD in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment compared to normal control. These data imply that HSK3486 dose adjustment is not warranted in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT04145596).Key MessageHSK3486 at an IV bolus dose of 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance infusion of 0.4 mg/kg/h was safe and well tolerated by all mild or moderate hepatic impairment subjects and normal hepatic function subjects.There were no clinically relevant differences in HSK3486 exposure or PD in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment compared to subjects with normal hepatic function.HSK3486 dose adjustment is not required in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol use for the induction of general anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background

Ciprofol is a recently developed, short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist sedative that is more potent than propofol, but there have been few clinical studies of this agent to date. Here, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ciprofol use for the induction of general anesthesia in individuals undergoing gynecological surgery.

Methods

Women between the ages of 18 and 60 years (ASA physical status 1 or 2) who were scheduled to undergo elective gynecological surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups in which anesthesia induction was performed using either ciprofol or propofol. General anesthesia induction success rates were the primary outcome for this study, while secondary outcomes included changes in BIS during the 10 min following the first administration of the study drug, the duration of successful induction, and adverse event incidence.

Results

A total of 120 women were included in the study. A 100% rate of successful induction was achieved in both the ciprofol and propofol groups, with no significant differences between these groups with respect to the duration of successful induction (34.8 ± 15.5 s vs 35.4 ± 9.5 s, P = 0.832), the time to the disappearance of the eyelash reflex (33.7 ± 10.6 s vs 34.0 ± 6.5 s, P = 0.860), or tracheal intubation (58.2 ± 31.1 s vs 53.9 ± 25.4 s, P = 0.448). Adverse event rates, including intubation responses, were significantly lower in the ciprofol group as compared to the propofol group(20% vs 48.33%, P = 0.0019). Ciprofol was associated with reduced injection pain relative to propofol (16.7% vs 58.3%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Ciprofol exhibits comparable efficacy to that of propofol when used for the induction of general anesthesia in individuals undergoing gynecological surgery and is associated with fewer adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01782-7.

Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Ciprofol or Propofol Sedation for Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial With Factorial Design

Background: Same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy procedures under sedation have been increasingly performed. This study aims to assess the effects of esketamine combined with ciprofol (a novel anesthetic/sedative agent) or propofol on respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events in patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. A total of 180 adult patients scheduled for same-day bidirectional endoscopy under sedation will be randomized, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive 1 of 4 sedation regimens: 1) ciprofol and esketamine, 2) propofol and esketamine, 3) ciprofol and normal saline placebo, or 4) propofol and normal saline placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 95%] and hypotension [mean blood pressure (MBP) < 65 mmHg or decrease in MBP ≥20% of baseline] during the sedation and in the recovery room. Secondary outcomes include episodes of desaturation, severe desaturation (SpO₂ < 90%), hypotension, severe hypotension (decrease in MBP ≥30% of baseline), bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, injection pain, pain scores and fatigue scores, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. Data will be analyzed on the modified intention-to-treat basis.

Discussion: We hypothesize that esketamine as an adjuvant to ciprofol or propofol sedation would improve cardiorespiratory stability. In addition, the potential interactions between interventions will be explored using the factorial design. The results of this trial will provide evidence for daily practice of sedation regimens for same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Identifier ChiCTR2100052523.