Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Effect of intravenous lidocaine on Ciprofol dose in patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCiprofol (CIP) for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (GE) can cause respiratory or cardiovascular complications. The literature suggests that intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion can alleviate visceral pain and enhance humans' ventilator response to CO
methodsThis randomized placebo-controlled trial included 40 patients undergoing GE. After CIP titration for unconsciousness, patients in group L were given IV lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg bolus dose, then a 2 mg/kg/h continuous infusion); the same volume saline as placebo was given for N group patients. The primary endpoint was the required CIP dose. Secondary endpoints were: endoscopic examination time, awakening time, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge time, pain and fatigue after awakening, adverse events, and endoscopist's and patient's satisfaction.
resultsBoth cohorts had comparable demographic characteristics. Group L's CIP consumption was decreased by 23.0% than the N group (47.38 ± 7.45 mg vs. 61.50 ± 9.44 mg, respectively, p < 0.001). Awakening time (P=0.002), PACU discharge time (P < 0.001), pain (P = 0.008), and fatigue (P = 0.004) after awakening were also reduced in group L. Furthermore, group L had higher satisfaction scores than group N (P = 0.017). No marked difference was identified in the incidence of unfavorable effects (P > 0.05 for all).
conclusionsLidocaine IV infusion caused a 23.0% reduction in CIP requirements during GE. Furthermore, post-endoscopic pain and fatigue were also improved, thus suggesting that lidocaine is an efficient therapeutic option.
trial registrationThis trial has been submitted to the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2300069868, registration date: 28/03/2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.