Drug design, development and therapy · 2025
Effects of Ciprofol on Hemodynamics During Induction in Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Xiao Hongyi, Ji Mingxin, Shi Xinyuan, Sun Qingqing, Chen Ziyuan, Dong Guimin, Ji Fanceng
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the impact of ciprofol and propofol on post-induction hypotension in hypertensive patients undergoing gynecological surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 96 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the ciprofol group. The ciprofol group received 0.5 mg/kg for anesthesia induction, while the propofol group received 2 mg/kg. The primary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction and the area under the curve (AUC) of hypotension during the induction phase. The secondary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), the cumulative dose of vasopressors during induction, the time to loss of consciousness, BIS values, recovery time, the incidence of injection pain, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the PACU.
RESULTS: The ciprofol group exhibited significantly better hemodynamic stability compared to the propofol group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (66.7% vs 89.6%, RR= 0.415, 95% CI= 0.189-0.915, P=0.007) and a smaller area under the curve during induction (-274.81±88.41mmHg·min vs -323.40±101.32mmHg·min, P=0.014). Secondary outcomes revealed that ciprofol administration resulted in less pronounced MAP fluctuations (37.27±12.83mmHg vs 44.94±13.06mmHg, P=0.005), reduced vasopressor requirements (6.0mg [0.0-6.0] vs 6.0mg [6.0-6.0], P=0.007), and lower incidence of injection pain (4.2% vs 72.9%, P=0.001). While no significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness and BIS values during induction (P>0.05), the ciprofol group demonstrated a slightly prolonged recovery time (7.0min [5.0-8.0] vs 5.0min [4.0-6.0], P=0.004). In the PACU, there was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups (4.2% vs 2.1%, P = 1.000).
CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol, ciprofol demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 96 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the ciprofol group. The ciprofol group received 0.5 mg/kg for anesthesia induction, while the propofol group received 2 mg/kg. The primary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction and the area under the curve (AUC) of hypotension during the induction phase. The secondary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), the cumulative dose of vasopressors during induction, the time to loss of consciousness, BIS values, recovery time, the incidence of injection pain, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the PACU.
RESULTS: The ciprofol group exhibited significantly better hemodynamic stability compared to the propofol group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (66.7% vs 89.6%, RR= 0.415, 95% CI= 0.189-0.915, P=0.007) and a smaller area under the curve during induction (-274.81±88.41mmHg·min vs -323.40±101.32mmHg·min, P=0.014). Secondary outcomes revealed that ciprofol administration resulted in less pronounced MAP fluctuations (37.27±12.83mmHg vs 44.94±13.06mmHg, P=0.005), reduced vasopressor requirements (6.0mg [0.0-6.0] vs 6.0mg [6.0-6.0], P=0.007), and lower incidence of injection pain (4.2% vs 72.9%, P=0.001). While no significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness and BIS values during induction (P>0.05), the ciprofol group demonstrated a slightly prolonged recovery time (7.0min [5.0-8.0] vs 5.0min [4.0-6.0], P=0.004). In the PACU, there was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups (4.2% vs 2.1%, P = 1.000).
CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol, ciprofol demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.