Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40454155›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Effect of ciprofol compared with propofol on hemodynamics in bronchoscope procedures during anesthetic induction: a randomized double-blind controlled study.

Fang Chen, Fang Xing, Jiayu Huang, Junwen Zhu, Ye Jiang, Cheng Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
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.

Fang Chen *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Fang Xing *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jiayu Huang *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Junwen ZhuShanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Ye Jiang *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Cheng Li *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative medicine, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Propofol poses hemodynamic challenges and injection pain during anesthesia. This study compared the effects of propofol and ciprofol, a novel propofol analog, on hemodynamics in painless bronchoscopy during induction of general anesthesia. Methods: A total of 250 patients underwent painless bronchoscopy anesthesia from October 2021 to June 2023. Randomly assigned to ciprofol or propofol groups, they received respective anesthesia. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure pre- and post-induction, after laryngeal mask airway placement, before and after fiberoptic scope insertion, incidence of choking and injection pain, vasoactive drug use, and satisfaction levels of operators, anesthesiologists, and patients were compared. Results: Ciprofol group showed significantly higher blood pressure 3 min post-induction compared to propofol group (80.81 ± 12.49 mmHg vs. 84.47 ± 12.80 mmHg, Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibits less hemodynamic impact and injection pain than propofol, suggesting it as a viable alternative for anesthesia induction in bronchoscopy under general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier [ChiCTR2200063048].

Indexed as

bronchoscopeciprofolgeneral anesthesiahemodynamicspropofol

Identifiers

PMID40454155
PMCPMC12122543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.