Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39533186›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024

Ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.

Le Yu, Xiang Liu, Xiang Zhao, Xiu Shan, Evelyne Bischof, Hui-Hong Lu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06312345 (Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Anesthesia Induction in Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06312345 naunknown statusnot on this map

Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Anesthesia Induction in Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLe YuRan2024 to 2024Enrolled80ConditionsAnesthesiaArmsDrug: ciprofol injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Le YuDepartment of Anesthesiology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Xiang LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Xiang ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Xiu ShanDepartment of Anesthesiology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Evelyne BischofDepartment of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. bischofevelyne@gmail.com.
Hui-Hong LuDepartment of Anesthesiology, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200120, China. luhuihongdfyy@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCiprofol, a novel intravenous general anesthetic with a chemical structure similar to propofol, exhibits significantly enhanced potency. It offers a rapid onset, reduced incidence of injection pain, and has comparable effects on heart rate and blood pressure to propofol. However, clinical data on its use for anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery remain limited.

methodsSeventy-eight patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (N = 40) or propofol (N = 38) for anesthesia induction. Variables recorded included changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia, alterations in the oxygenation index and lactic acid concentration before and 10 min after anesthesia induction, and the incidence of adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, and injection pain.

resultsThe incidence of anesthesia-induced injection pain was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to the propofol group (3% vs. 18%, P < 0.05). The incidence of other adverse events was similar between the groups. No significant differences in hemodynamics or oxygenation index were observed during anesthesia induction between ciprofol and propofol.

conclusionsCiprofol demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of injection pain compared to propofol, potentially improving patient comfort during anesthesia induction. Additionally, ciprofol showed comparable circulatory stability to propofol during anesthesia induction in cardiac surgery, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative to propofol for this application.

trial registrationThe trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 03/10/2024 (NCT06312345).

Indexed as

Anesthetics, IntravenousPropofolAgedCardiac Surgical ProceduresCoronary Artery BypassCyclopropanesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHeart RateHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMaleMiddle Aged(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesPropofolAnesthesia inductionCiprofolCoronary artery bypass graftHeart valve replacementPropofol

Identifiers

PMID39533186
PMCPMC11556191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.