BMC geriatrics · 2025
Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.
Equivalence TrialСтатьяНазвание 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.
Xu Qingqin, Zhang Jingdong, Yan Xiaoyan, Qiao Xin, Zhu Wenxiu, Chen Jingxing, Xue Yun, Zhang Wenchao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cipepofol, a novel anesthetic agent, may offer advantages for older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach compared to a combination of etomidate and propofol (EP).
METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.
RESULTS: All patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).
CONCLUSION: In older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .
METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.
RESULTS: All patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).
CONCLUSION: In older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .