SynthesisDrugs & aging2026
Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Anesthesia in Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Drugs & aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-Intubation Hypotension After Titrated Induction with Ciprofol versus Propofol in Older Adults Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePropofol is widely used in clinical anesthesia, but its cardiorespiratory depressive effects may limit its safety in older patients. With the growing number of older adults requiring anesthesia, ciprofol has attracted interest because of its higher potency and relatively mild hemodynamic impact. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared with propofol in older patients undergoing general anesthesia or painless endoscopy.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to 7 November, 2025, to identify eligible studies. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and R version 4.5.1.
resultsA total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 2027 older participants were included. For safety outcomes, ciprofol significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (risk ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.84; p < 0.00001) and injection pain (risk ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.26; p < 0.00001) compared with propofol. No significant differences were observed between the two agents in the incidence of bradycardia, hypoxemia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Regarding efficacy outcomes, ciprofol was associated with a longer time to loss of consciousness compared with propofol (mean difference = 4.67 seconds, 95% confidence interval 0.65-8.70; p = 0.02), while no significant differences were observed in anesthesia success rate, procedure completion rate, and awakening time.
conclusionsBased on the currently available evidence from randomized trials conducted in China, ciprofol showed comparable efficacy to propofol and was associated with lower incidences of hypotension and injection pain in older patients. These findings may still be informative for anesthetic management in broader settings, although further validation is needed. CLINICAL
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD420251179366.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42387086What 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.