Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
Effects of Ciprofol on Hemodynamics During Induction in Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-Intubation Hypotension After Titrated Induction with Ciprofol versus Propofol in Older Adults Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to compare the impact of ciprofol and propofol on post-induction hypotension in hypertensive patients undergoing gynecological surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 96 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the ciprofol group. The ciprofol group received 0.5 mg/kg for anesthesia induction, while the propofol group received 2 mg/kg. The primary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction and the area under the curve (AUC) of hypotension during the induction phase. The secondary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), the cumulative dose of vasopressors during induction, the time to loss of consciousness, BIS values, recovery time, the incidence of injection pain, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the PACU. Results: The ciprofol group exhibited significantly better hemodynamic stability compared to the propofol group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (66.7% vs 89.6%, RR= 0.415, 95% CI= 0.189-0.915, P=0.007) and a smaller area under the curve during induction (-274.81±88.41mmHg·min vs -323.40±101.32mmHg·min, P=0.014). Secondary outcomes revealed that ciprofol administration resulted in less pronounced MAP fluctuations (37.27±12.83mmHg vs 44.94±13.06mmHg, P=0.005), reduced vasopressor requirements (6.0mg [0.0-6.0] vs 6.0mg [6.0-6.0], P=0.007), and lower incidence of injection pain (4.2% vs 72.9%, P=0.001). While no significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness and BIS values during induction (P>0.05), the ciprofol group demonstrated a slightly prolonged recovery time (7.0min [5.0-8.0] vs 5.0min [4.0-6.0], P=0.004). In the PACU, there was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups (4.2% vs 2.1%, P = 1.000). Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.
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.