Trial reportAnnals of medicine2025
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing hysteroscopy: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial.
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.
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 Ciprofol for the Sedation in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ciprofol versus propofol and the risk of hemodynamic adverse events: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Effect of Different Doses of Esketamine on the Propofol Effect-Site Concentration Required to Suppress Cervical Dilation-Associated Movement During Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Parallel-Group Dose-Response Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol versus Propofol for Tracheal Intubation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Hernia Repair: An Assessor-Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Effects of Ciprofol on Hemodynamics During Induction in Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.