Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of hemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation with oliceridine and sufentanil during induction: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07372209 (Study of Effects and Underlying Mechanisms of Analgesic Drugs on Inflammatory Pathways and Immune Function in Patients With Endometrial Cancer), which is not on this 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.
Study of Effects and Underlying Mechanisms of Analgesic Drugs on Inflammatory Pathways and Immune Function in Patients With Endometrial Cancer
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOliceridine, a G-protein-biased μ-opioid receptor agonist, offers a potential alternative to conventional opioids by reducing adverse effects. However, its efficacy in attenuating the hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation compared to sufentanil remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the hemodynamic stability of oliceridine versus sufentanil during anesthesia induction.
methodsThis single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 120 female patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either oliceridine (0.06 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 µg/kg) during induction. The primary outcome was hemodynamic variability, quantified using the variability independent of the mean (VIM) for systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP), and heart rate (HR). Secondary outcomes included absolute changes in hemodynamic parameters at specific time points post-intubation.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. The oliceridine group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in hemodynamic stability, with lower VIM scores for SBP (P = 0.016), MBP (P = 0.029), and HR (P = 0.042) compared to the sufentanil group. Prior to intubation, the sufentanil group exhibited significantly lower MBP and SBP compared to the oliceridine group. Immediately post-intubation, the sufentanil group experienced significantly greater fluctuations in SBP, MBP, and HR (p < 0.05). Recovery profiles at 1, 3, and 5 min post-intubation were similar between groups.
conclusionOliceridine demonstrated statistically significant, albeit modest, improvements in hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction compared to sufentanil. It effectively attenuates the stress response to intubation while minimizing the risk of induction-related hypotension.
trial registrationNCT07372209 Date: September 3, 2025 Retrospectively registered.
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.