Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Prophylactic Efficacy of Cipepofol Against Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High-Risk Patients of Apfel Score: A Multicenter, Randomized, and Parallel-Group Comparative 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This investigation systematically evaluated the antiemetic efficacy and safety of cipepofol for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in surgical candidates with moderate to high Apfel risk. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group comparative trial was conducted at 18 clinical centers (N=594). Participants aged 18-60 years (ASA physical status I-III) with 2-4 Apfel risk factors undergoing elective noncardiac surgery were randomized into three anesthesia maintenance cohorts after cipepofol induction: cipepofol monotherapy (0.8 mg/kg/h), sevoflurane (1.5-2.0%), and combination therapy (cipepofol 0.4 mg/kg/h plus sevoflurane 1.0%). The primary endpoint was the incidence of PONV at 24 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of PONV at 48 h postoperatively and intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Results: Cipepofol monotherapy yielded a significantly lower 24-h PONV incidence (32.97% [95% CI, 27.1-39.2]) than sevoflurane (65.75% [59.4-71.6]; p<0.001). This difference persisted at 48 h (cipepofol: 35.68% [29.5-42.3]; sevoflurane: 69.06% [62.8-74.8]). A significantly lower proportion of patients required rescue antiemetic therapy in the cipepofol group than in the sevoflurane group within 48 h postoperatively (7.03% vs 16.02%, p=0.007). In addition, cipepofol was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension than sevoflurane (9.73% vs 19.34%, p=0.009). Conclusion: Compared with sevoflurane alone, cipepofol significantly reduced PONV incidence at 24 and 48 h after surgery, with more stable intraoperative hemodynamics.
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.