Efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol during the induction of general anesthesia in burns patients: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared ciprofol and propofol during general anesthesia induction in burn patients to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and hemodynamic stability, providing a basis for optimizing anesthesia management.

METHODS

150 burn surgery patients were randomized into ciprofol (Group P, n = 75) or propofol (Group C, n = 75). The time to successful anesthesia induction, the latency of eyelash reflex disappearance, hemodynamics (MAP, HR), bispectral index (BIS), adverse events (injection pain, dizziness, etc.), intubation response, and anesthesiologist satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Group P showed significantly longer durations for successful anesthesia induction and longer latency of eyelash reflex disappearance, but less injection pain and body movement (p < 0.05). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant time and group interactions for MAP and HR (both p < 0.05). Post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction revealed between-group differences at specific time points (adjusted p < 0.017). No significant group differences were found in nausea or allergic reactions (p > 0.05). Anesthesiologists reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction in Group P regarding anesthetic efficacy, postoperative recovery, and overall satisfaction when compared to Group C (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol is safe and effective for anesthesia induction in burn patients, offering acceptable sedation with reduced injection discomfort. Findings support its clinical use and address evidence gaps in burn patient anesthesia management.