ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Ciprofol injection in patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
Object: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in sedation for patients undergoing non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), with a focus on evaluating sedative efficiency and systematically comparing the incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory depression, and adverse reactions. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 120 patients receiving NPPV at our hospital between June 2024 and October 2025. According to the sedative agent used, patients were divided into a Ciprofol group (Group C, n = 56) and a Propofol group (Group P, n = 64). The primary outcome was the sedation induction time, defined as the duration from drug administration to the first achievement of the target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -2 to 0. Secondary outcomes included the recovery time, extubation time, dynamic changes in respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO Results: Regarding the primary outcome, the sedation induction time was comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that the Ciprofol group demonstrated several advantages: ① Enhanced Safety Profile: The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension were significantly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.05). ② Faster Recovery: Both emergence time and full recovery time were shorter in the Ciprofol group compared to the Propofol group (p < 0.05). ③ Improved Tolerability: The incidence of injection pain was markedly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.001), and fluctuations in respiratory and circulatory parameters during treatment were also reduced. Conclusion: For patients undergoing NPPV, ciprofol provides sedation efficacy comparable to propofol while demonstrating a superior safety profile, faster recovery, and enhanced injection tolerability. This combination of advantages makes ciprofol a preferable alternative for sedation in this clinical setting.
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.