Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Fospropofol disodium versus Propofol for deep sedation in critically ill patients: a randomized pilot study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05870514 (Efficacy and Safety of Fospropofol Disodium Versus Propofol for Deep Sedation in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Efficacy and Safety of Fospropofol Disodium Versus Propofol for Deep Sedation in Critically Ill Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dexmedetomidine versus usual care in adult patients with septic shock receiving vasopressors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Review
- Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Fospropofol Disodium for Injection in Subjects with Hepatic Impairment Compared with Healthy Matched Controls: A Prospective Cohort Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFospropofol disodium is comparable to propofol in maintaining mild-to-moderate sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care unit (ICU). However, its efficacy for deep sedation remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a randomized-controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of fospropofol disodium with propofol for deep sedation of mechanically ventilated patients in ICU.
methodsIn this randomized pilot study, critically ill adult patients requiring deep sedation were randomized to receive fospropofol disodium or propofol. The study drug was titrated to maintain a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score (RASS) of-5 or-4. Narcotrend Index (NI) value was monitored during the whole study period. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes were successful extubation, ventilator-free days at day 7, ventilator-free days at day 28, 28-day all-cause mortality and adverse events.
resultsThirty patients were included in each group. The fospropofol disodium infusion lasted for 47.50 (IQR 31.75 to 48.00) hours at a dose of 8.19 ± 2.36 mg/kg/h, while propofol infusion for 48.00 (IQR 30.88 to 48.00) hours at 2.73 ± 0.83 mg/kg/h. The proportion of time within the target RASS range without rescue sedation was 96.78%±0.07% in the fospropofol group and 98.43%±0.04% in the propofol group (p = 0.273). A total of 39 patients experienced adverse events, with 19 in the fospropofol group and 20 in the propofol group. The most common adverse event was hypotension, with 18 patients (60.0%) in each group. No significant differences were observed in successful extubation, ventilator-free days at day 7, ventilator-free days at day 28, or 28-day all-cause mortality.
conclusionsIn this open-label trial, fospropofol disodium achieved deep sedation at a rate comparable to propofol. For mechanically ventilated ICU patients, fospropofol disodium may offer a safe and effective sedation option. Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings.
trial registrationThe trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on May 12, 2023, with the identifer NCT05870514.
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.