Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation in Critically Ill Patients After Cardiac Surgery: A Single-Center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 123 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or valve surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (Group C) or propofol (Group P) for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Midazolam was administered if additional sedation was required, and remifentanil was used for analgesia. Sedation and analgesia were titrated to a target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -2 to +1 and a Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) score < 3. The primary endpoint was the mean sedation compliance rate, defined as the percentage of RASS scores within the target range during the initial 24 hours. Secondary endpoints included safety events, extubation time, length of ICU stay, mortality, delirium incidence, and postoperative recovery. Results: In the per-protocol (PP) population, sedation compliance was 92.77% (Group C) and 94.30% (Group P). Ciprofol showed non-inferior sedation to propofol in cardiac surgery patients; the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for rate difference (RD) exceeded the -8% non-inferiority margin in both PP and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The incidence of hypotension was numerically lower in Group C (31.3% vs 40.7%; Conclusion: In summary, ciprofol provides non-inferior sedation efficacy and a comparable safety profile to propofol in critically ill patients following cardiac surgery. A numerical trend toward lower hypotension incidence was observed with ciprofol, which warrants further validation in future studies.
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.