Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
Ciprofol provides safer sedation than propofol in minor gynecologic surgery: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Wenbo, Chen Qingtong, Peng Dashuo, Li Yanhui, Liu Wenyang, Peng Sijin, Xie Guiling
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The quality of sedation critically affects the success and safety of minor gynecologic surgeries. Ciprofol, a novel analog of propofol, offers rapid onset and recovery with a potentially improved safety profile. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during minor gynecologic surgery.
METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind trial, 342 patients scheduled for minor gynecologic procedures were assigned to receive either ciprofol or propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance. The primary outcomes were anesthesia onset time and surgical success rate. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, hemodynamic stability, body movement, injection pain, satisfaction ratings, and adverse events such as respiratory depression and hypotension.
RESULTS: Both agents achieved a 100% anesthesia success rate, with comparable onset times (ciprofol: 37.2±10.4 s vs. propofol: 38.7±11.2 s; p=0.214). Ciprofol required a fivefold lower total dose (68.5±31.7 mg vs. 359.6±164.6 mg; p<0.001) and demonstrated superior safety, including fewer body movements (2.4 vs. 15.3%), absence of injection pain (0 vs. 36.5%), and reduced hypotension (10.1 vs. 41.2%; all p<0.001). Satisfaction was higher among surgeons and patients receiving ciprofol.
CONCLUSION: Ciprofol provides anesthesia efficacy equivalent to propofol with significantly enhanced safety and tolerance, supporting its use as a preferred agent for outpatient gynecologic surgery.
METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind trial, 342 patients scheduled for minor gynecologic procedures were assigned to receive either ciprofol or propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance. The primary outcomes were anesthesia onset time and surgical success rate. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, hemodynamic stability, body movement, injection pain, satisfaction ratings, and adverse events such as respiratory depression and hypotension.
RESULTS: Both agents achieved a 100% anesthesia success rate, with comparable onset times (ciprofol: 37.2±10.4 s vs. propofol: 38.7±11.2 s; p=0.214). Ciprofol required a fivefold lower total dose (68.5±31.7 mg vs. 359.6±164.6 mg; p<0.001) and demonstrated superior safety, including fewer body movements (2.4 vs. 15.3%), absence of injection pain (0 vs. 36.5%), and reduced hypotension (10.1 vs. 41.2%; all p<0.001). Satisfaction was higher among surgeons and patients receiving ciprofol.
CONCLUSION: Ciprofol provides anesthesia efficacy equivalent to propofol with significantly enhanced safety and tolerance, supporting its use as a preferred agent for outpatient gynecologic surgery.