Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
A comparison of ciprofol-nalbuphine versus propofol-nalbuphine on safety and efficacy during gastrointestinal endoscopy: 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. 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
Abstract
backgroundProcedural sedation/anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GE) is frequently associated with hypotension. Ciprofol, a novel anesthetic agent with a pharmacological profile similar to propofol, may offer improved cardio-respiratory stability. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of ciprofol-nalbuphine versus the traditional propofol-nalbuphine in GE patients.
methodsA total of 270 adults scheduled for consecutive gastroscopy and colonoscopy were randomly assigned to the propofol-nalbuphine group (PNG) or the ciprofol-nalbuphine group (CNG). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension, analyzed at two thresholds: (1) hypotension, defined as a > 20% decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) from baseline; and (2) severe hypotension, defined as a > 30% decrease in MAP from baseline. Secondary outcomes comprised hemodynamic parameters, Narcotrend stage and index, anesthesia duration and drug dosage, and the incidence of injection pain, respiratory depression, and other predefined safety endpoints.
resultsCompared with the PNG, the CNG had a lower incidence of hypotension (33.6% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.033), severe hypotension (6.7% vs. 16.2%, P = 0.015), respiratory depression (5.2% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.022), and injection pain (1.5% vs. 31.1%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline values, systolic blood pressure was significantly higher in the CNG at 1 and 5 min post-induction, as well as significantly higher MAP and diastolic blood pressure at 5 min post-induction. The CNG demonstrated more stable anesthesia depth control, with a higher Narcotrend index at 1 min post-induction (36.9 ± 0.6 vs. 30.4 ± 0.6, P < 0.001) but lower at 10 min post-induction (58.2 ± 0.9 vs. 62.5 ± 1.1, P = 0.003) and at the end of GE (68.9 ± 1.0 vs. 77 ± 0.8, P < 0.001), with a more favorable anesthesia depth stage distribution. Additionally, the CNG required significantly lower total equivalent anesthetic dosage (192.1 ± 39.0 vs. 239.7 ± 54.1 mg, P < 0.001).
conclusionsCompared with the PNG, the CNG demonstrated fewer hypotensive episodes, more stable intraprocedural hemodynamics, and along with a lower incidence of adverse events, suggesting that ciprofol might be a suitable alternative for sedation/anesthesia in GE.
trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500113434) on November 28, 2025.
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.