Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40705792›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the induction of general anesthesia in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A double-blind randomized, controlled study.

Xiaowei Chi, Yi Xu, Qiang Li, Keshu Xia, Qiang Fu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05522998 (Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for the Induction of General Anesthesia in Obese Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT05522998 phase4completednot on this map

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for the Induction of General Anesthesia in Obese Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Third People's Hospital of ChengduRan2023 to 2024Enrolled212ConditionsBariatric SurgeryArmsCiprofol, Propofol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
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

5 authors.

Xiaowei ChiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yi XuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qiang LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Keshu XiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Qiang FuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8504-3292

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe selection of safe and effective anesthetic agents for patients undergoing bariatric surgery is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in inducing general anesthesia in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

methodsA total of 212 patients scheduled for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the ciprofol (0.5 mg/kg, n = 106) and propofol (2.5 mg/kg, n = 106) groups. The primary endpoint was to assess the success rate of anesthesia induction. Secondary endpoints included evaluating the time of induction, loss of eyelash reflex, changes in bispectral index, and adverse event incidence.

resultsThe success rates of anesthesia induction were 100% in both groups. Ciprofol demonstrated non-inferiority to propofol in induction success. The times to successful induction onset and eyelash reflex disappearance were significantly longer in the ciprofol group compared to those in the propofol group (39.38 ± 8.57 s vs. 36.74 ± 6.82 s, P = 0.014 and 40.36 ± 8.59 s vs. 37.77 ± 6.84 s, P = 0.016, respectively). The adverse events incidence was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to that in the propofol group (25.47% vs. 89.62%, P = 0.000). The number of patients requiring top-up doses was not statistically significant (3.77% vs. 7.55%, P = 0.235). Ciprofol demonstrated advantages in hemodynamic stability and maintaining a better sedation level post-induction. Ciprofol was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypotension compared to propofol (14.15% vs. 37.74%, P < 0.001), and more patients maintained appropriate sedation depth (86.80% vs. 72.64%, P = 0.010, 40 ≤ bispectral index ≤ 60 within 10 min of intravenous administration).

conclusionCiprofol offers a better sedative effect, fewer adverse events, and greater hemodynamic stability during general anesthesia induction in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05522998.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralGastrectomyLaparoscopyObesityAdultAnesthetics, IntravenousBariatric SurgeryCyclopropanesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropofol(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID40705792
PMCPMC12289008

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.