Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of anesthetic effects of different sedative drugs combined with remifentanil for general anesthesia in bronchoscopy: 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic bronchoscopy, as an important means of invasive diagnosis, exerts strong stimulation on anatomical structures such as the pharynx, glottis, carina. Therefore, selecting an appropriate anesthesia regimen not only enhances patient comfort and satisfaction but also guarantees the safety and the smooth running of the operation. This study aimed to compare the clinical anesthetic effects of different sedative drugs combined with remifentanil-based general anesthesia in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.
methodsA total of 120 patients scheduled for elective painless electronic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to the ciprofol group (Group C), etomidate group (Group E), and remimazolam group (Group R). The primary observation indicator was the incidence of intraoperative hypotension. Secondary observation indicators included postoperative recovery time and the incidence of perioperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, cough, bronchospasm, dizziness).
resultsThe incidence of hypotension was 45.0% in Group C, 50.0% in Group R, and 17.9% in Group E. The incidence of hypotension in Group E was significantly lower than that in Groups C and R (χ² = 9.949, P = 0.007). The main perioperative adverse responses were postoperative cough, nausea and vomiting, bronchospasm, and dizziness. There was no statistically significant difference in cough severity among the three groups (χ² = 3.26, P = 0.776). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was 7.50% in Group C, 7.50% in Group R, and 46.15% in Group E. The incidence of PONV in Group E was significantly higher than the other two groups (χ² = 24.331, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in recovery time and laryngeal mask removal time across the groups.
conclusionEtomidate demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability but carries a higher risk of PONV. In contrast, ciprofol and remimazolam offer better postoperative comfort. For patients at high risk of hemodynamic instability, etomidate may be preferred with enhanced PONV prophylaxis; for those at high risk of PONV or desiring rapid and comfortable recovery, ciprofol or remimazolam are more suitable options.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400084332). Registered on May 14, 2024.
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.