Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026
Ciprofol versus propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a dose-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Liu Jing, Yu Jun, Chen Zhiyong, Bai Yuchao, Zhang Ximeng, Du Jian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We compared ciprofol with propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, focusing on dose, recovery, induction, satisfaction, and adverse events.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched through May 2026 for randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. We pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251088249).
RESULTS: Eleven trials (2,084 participants) met the criteria. Recovery was statistically longer with ciprofol (WMD 0.83 min, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.49; P = 0.01), but the absolute difference was under 1 min; the difference was observed at 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg. Induction time and physician and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly. Ciprofol was associated with fewer reported episodes of hypotension (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90), injection pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.22), respiratory depression (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83), and hypoxemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96).
CONCLUSION: Ciprofol and propofol produced broadly comparable procedural outcomes. The apparent advantages for selected adverse events and the dose-related recovery pattern are uncertain because all trials were conducted in China, several pooled outcomes were highly heterogeneous, outcome definitions varied, and publication bias was possible. The dose-stratified findings are exploratory, and the results are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger international trials.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251088249, identifier PROSPERO CRD420251088249.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched through May 2026 for randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. We pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251088249).
RESULTS: Eleven trials (2,084 participants) met the criteria. Recovery was statistically longer with ciprofol (WMD 0.83 min, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.49; P = 0.01), but the absolute difference was under 1 min; the difference was observed at 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg. Induction time and physician and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly. Ciprofol was associated with fewer reported episodes of hypotension (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90), injection pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.22), respiratory depression (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83), and hypoxemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96).
CONCLUSION: Ciprofol and propofol produced broadly comparable procedural outcomes. The apparent advantages for selected adverse events and the dose-related recovery pattern are uncertain because all trials were conducted in China, several pooled outcomes were highly heterogeneous, outcome definitions varied, and publication bias was possible. The dose-stratified findings are exploratory, and the results are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger international trials.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251088249, identifier PROSPERO CRD420251088249.