Effect of Ciprofol on Left Ventricular Myocardial Strain and Myocardial Work in Children Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Single-center Double-blind Randomized Noninferiority Study.

OBJECTIVE

The current work was designed to compare the effects of ciprofol and propofol on left ventricular systolic function and myocardial work by noninvasive speckle-tracking echocardiography in children undergoing surgical repair of atrial septal or ventricular septal defects.

DESIGN

A single-center double-blind randomized noninferiority study was conducted.

SETTING

The research occurred at a tertiary care center affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and twelve children aged 1 month to 16 years undergoing atrial septal or ventricular septal defect surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were included.

INTERVENTIONS: One hundred and twelve children were allocated randomly to receive ciprofol (n = 67) or propofol (n = 45) in a 1.5:1 ratio. Ciprofol or propofol were intravenously infused at loading doses of 0.4 mg/kg or 2.0 mg/kg, respectively, over 30 seconds, depending on the physical condition of each patient. When the bispectral index was maintained between 45 and 55 after induction, transthoracic echocardiography, including apical two-chamber, three-chamber, and four-chamber views, were collected bedside.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

RESULTS

Of the 112 patients enrolled, 104 completed the study. Global longitudinal strain in the ciprofol and propofol groups after anesthesia was -17.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -18.0% to -16.6%) and -17.8% (95% CI -18.7 to -17.0%) in the full analysis set and -17.5% (95% CI -18.2% to -16.9%) and -17.8% (95% CI -18.7% to -17.0%) in the per-protocol set, respectively. The noninferiority margin was set at 2% and confirmed with a lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the intergroup difference of 1.58% in the full analysis set and 1.34% in the per-protocol set. There were no significant differences between the groups in left ventricular systolic and diastolic function and myocardial work indices. Postoperative vasoactive-inotropic score, NT-proBNP, duration of mechanical ventilation, and the length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit and hospital were also comparable between the two groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol did not show different effects on myocardial function and postoperative outcomes from propofol. Further, on the sensitive cardiac systole marker global longitudinal strain, ciprofol demonstrated noninferiority to propofol. Ciprofol might be an alternative solution for cardiac anesthesia in children with congestive heart disease with mild lesion.