Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Comparison of the Efficacy of Ciprofol and Propofol for Rapid Sequence Induction and Intubation in Elective Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Non-Inferiority 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid sequence induction and intubation (RSII) requires an agent that provides excellent intubating conditions with minimal hemodynamic disturbance. Propofol is standard but often causes hypotension. We compared the novel agent ciprofol with propofol for RSII in adult patients scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, 170 adult patients scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery were allocated to receive intravenous ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg, n = 85) or propofol (2.0 mg/kg, n = 85) for induction, with remifentanil and rocuronium. The non-inferiority margin was set at -10% for the primary outcome. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with excellent intubation conditions (Viby-Mogensen scale). Secondary outcomes included incidence of hypotension, induction success rate, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), bispectral index (BIS) values, and pain on injection. Results: Excellent intubation conditions were achieved in 96.5% (82/85) of the ciprofol group and 95.3% (81/85) of the propofol group (difference 1.2%, 95% CI: -4.4% to 6.7%). The lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%. The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (difference 1.2%, 95% CI -4.2% to 6.7%). The incidence of post-induction hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group (15.3% vs 43.5%; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.61; P < 0.001). No patient reported injection pain with ciprofol, compared to 68.2% with propofol (P < 0.001). Time to LOC and induction success rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: In adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery under a standardized RSI protocol, ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg provided intubating conditions non-inferior to propofol 2.0 mg/kg and was associated with less post-induction hypotension and injection pain. Further studies are needed in emergency, critically ill, and high-risk RSI populations. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500095742).
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.