Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Ciprofol versus propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Sedation Effect of Cipepofol Compared to Dexmedetomidine in Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Study.Advances in therapy · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation in Critically Ill Patients After Cardiac Surgery: A Single-Center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Cipepofol versus Conventional Sedation for Pneumonia Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Real-World Retrospective Study of Effectiveness and Hemodynamic Safety.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Observational
- An approach for the emergency diagnosis and treatment of sepsis-associated encephalopathy in elderly individuals: a literature review.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSedatives are often used to facilitate mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis. Ciprofol is a new promising sedated candidate with a higher binding activity to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor than propofol. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis.
methodsIn this single-center randomized clinical trial, mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) who anticipated to require long-term sedation ≥ 24 h were randomly assigned to receive intravenous ciprofol or propofol. The target sedation goal was - 3 to 0 according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The primary outcome was weaning time. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time within the target sedation range, successful sedation (the percentage of time within the target sedation range ≥ 70% without rescue sedation), ICU and in-hospital mortality, length of ICU and hospital stay, hypotension, and bradycardia.
resultsA total of 60 patients were randomized, 4 were excluded because of withdrawing treatment, 28 were assigned to ciprofol group and 28 to propofol group. Weaning time in ciprofol group was shorter than propofol group (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 104.0 [40.8-147.3] hours vs 132.5 [69.8-207.8] hours), but not reached significant difference between groups (P = 0.123). Ciprofol had significantly higher percentage of time within the target sedation range (median [IQR], 72.2% [14.3-92.7%] vs 22.6% [0.0-45.4%]) and successful sedation (53.6% [15/28] vs 14.3% [4/28]) than propofol. No significant differences were observed in ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, hypotension, and bradycardia between groups.
conclusionsCiprofol is an effective and safe agent among mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis who anticipated to require long-term sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200066835) on December 19, 2022.
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.