SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Ciprofol versus propofol and the risk of hemodynamic adverse events: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntraoperative hypotension increases postoperative risks. Ciprofol, a novel anesthetic, has an onset and recovery profile comparable to propofol, but its potential superiority in mitigating intraoperative hypotension is unclear. This meta-analysis compares the incidence of intraoperative hypotension between ciprofol and propofol.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to December 10, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing ciprofol and propofol. Data were analyzed using RevMan and Stata. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age, anesthetic dose, and type of procedure. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the robustness and sufficiency of the evidence.
resultsThis meta-analysis of 34 trials (5,162 patients) found that ciprofol was associated with a significantly lower risk of intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.73). This benefit was consistent across various subgroups, including different age groups, dose ranges, and procedure types. Ciprofol also demonstrated lower incidences of respiratory depression (RR = 0.44), injection pain (RR = 0.19), and hypoxemia (RR = 0.62), but was associated with a very small, likely clinically insignificant increase in awakening time;however, these findings are based on secondary outcomes and should be interpreted as exploratory. Trial sequential analysis confirmed sufficient sample size for the intraoperative hypotension and injection pain outcomes. The certainty of the evidence, assessed using the GRADE approach, was rated as low to moderate.
conclusionsCiprofol was associated with a reduced incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol, with comparable anesthetic efficacy. Nevertheless, due to heterogeneity and overall low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these results and delineate the clinical benefits of ciprofol.
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.