ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Safety and efficacy of cipepofol for painless digestive endoscopy in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundCipepofol, a novel anesthetic agent, may offer advantages for older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach compared to a combination of etomidate and propofol (EP).
methodsIn this single-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 120 older patients(aged 65-90 years) undergoing painless gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomized to receive either cipepofol (0.3-0.4 mg/kg; n = 60) or EP (1:1 ratio, 0.15-0.2 mL/kg; n = 60). Primary outcomes included sedation duration. Secondary outcomes assessed sedation success, recovery time, discharge readiness, adverse events, and hemodynamic stability.
resultsAll patients achieved successful sedation (100%). Initial sedation duration was comparable between the cipepofol and EP groups (8.73 [5.10, 10.18] vs. 7.41 [5.35, 9.09] minutes; p = 0.165). Recovery times were similar (5.49 [3.51, 7.62] vs. 4.86 [3.36, 8.86] minutes; p = 0.819), while discharge readiness was faster in the cipepofol group (1.67 [0.78, 2.38] vs. 2.96 [1.21, 7.23] minutes; p = 0.002). Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were comparable. Injection pain occurred only in the EP group (5%).
conclusionIn older patients undergoing painless digestive endoscopy, cipepofol is non-inferior to the etomidate-propofol combination in sedation duration and safety. It also shares the characteristic of stable hemodynamics and offers advantages, including reduced injection pain and a shorter time to meet discharge criteria, providing a simplified choice for clinical practice.
trial registrationChiCTR2400088889, Date of Registration: 2024-08-28, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=212632 .
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.