Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40530830›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of medicine2025

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing hysteroscopy: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

Shi Cheng, Haixuan Wu, Zhongqi Liu, Dan Liu, Minghui Cao, Ganglan Fu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06172140 (Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for the Sedation in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT06172140 nacompletednot on this map

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for the Sedation in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorSun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled124ConditionsCiprofol, HysteroscopyArmsCiprofol group, Propofol group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Shi ChengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9066-0288
Haixuan WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhongqi LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Dan LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Minghui CaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ganglan FuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPropofol is the preferred sedative for painless hysteroscopy and other procedures due to its fast onset and short duration. However, its limitations, including injection pain, respiratory depression, blood pressure decline, and bradycardia, cannot be disregarded. Ciprofol, a new short-acting gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist, has shown effectiveness and safety in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to demonstrate that ciprofol is not inferior to propofol in terms of sedation efficacy for painless hysteroscopy. PATIENTS AND

methodsA randomized study was conducted with 124 women to evaluate the anesthetic effect of ciprofol during outpatient painless hysteroscopy. The primary outcome assessed was the success rate of hysteroscopy, while secondary indicators included induction and recovery time, injection pain, tidal volume and respiratory rate. Safety indicators comprised hypotension, hypoxemia, and sinus bradycardia.

resultsA total of 124 patients were enrolled in the study, with 62 in each group. The success rate of hysteroscopy was 100% in both groups. Patients in the ciprofol group had higher diastolic pressure, pulse oxygen saturation levels and minute breathing during surgery than patients in the propofol group, but their induction time and recovery time were longer. The proportion of patients in the propofol group who reported pain during intravenous anesthesia was 41.935%, which was significantly higher than that of patients in the ciprofol group (1.613%).

conclusionDuring painless hysteroscopy, ciprofol demonstrates non-inferiority to propofol in terms of anesthetic efficacy. Despite slightly longer induction and recovery times, ciprofol results in lower instances of injection pain and less impact on respiration and circulation compared to propofol. TRIAL NUMBER: Clinical trial Registration Identifier: NCT06172140.

Indexed as

Hypnotics and SedativesHysteroscopyAdultAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPropofolProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesHypnotics and SedativesPropofolCiprofolHysteroscopyPropofol

Identifiers

PMID40530830
PMCPMC12180349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.