SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparison of ciprofol and propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From propofol to cipepofol (Cypsedo®), a new intravenous general anesthetic approved for adults undergoing surgery.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2026Article
- Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: From Drug-Centered Protocols to Personalized, Technology-Supported Pathways: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of ciprofol versus propofol sedation on hypoxaemia and hypotension in elderly patients undergoing bidirectional endoscopy: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The potential of ciprofol in endoscopic anesthesia is receiving increasing attention. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger sedative effects and requires a lower dosage. This study aimed to compare the safety of ciprofol and propofol in Chinese patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across eight common databases before 1 January 2025, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, WanFang, and SinoMed. After screening the literature according to established standards, the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and TSA 0.9.5.10 beta, respectively. Finally, publication bias for each outcome was assessed using Harbord regression analysis. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1,264 participants undergoing ERCP were included, and all included studies were conducted in China, with participants representing the Chinese population. The meta-analysis showed that compared to propofol, ciprofol reduced bradycardia (risk ratio [RR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.76, P = 0.003, n = 4), hypotension (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.95, P = 0.02, n = 4), respiratory depression (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.44, P < 0.00001, n = 5), hypoxemia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.58, P < 0.0001, n = 5), and injection pain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.26, P < 0.00001, n = 7), but had no significant effect on choking cough, involuntary movements, or nausea and vomiting. TSA showed a conclusive benefit for bradycardia, respiratory depression, hypoxemia, and injection pain, whereas the benefit for hypotension needs further validation. Harbord regression analysis showed no publication bias for any of the outcomes, except for hypotension. Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol has been shown to reduce the incidence of bradycardia, respiratory depression, hypoxemia, and injection pain in patients undergoing ERCP; however, its effect on the occurrence of hypotension still requires further investigation. Future studies are warranted to clarify the safety, efficacy, and optimal dosing of ciprofol across various patient populations, particularly those with complex comorbidities. These efforts would facilitate the broader application of ciprofol in ERCP and other surgical procedures, such as gastrointestinal and ophthalmic surgeries. Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251090047, identifer, CRD420251090047.
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.