ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Efficacy and safety of sedation induced with cipepofol alone versus a dexmedetomidine plus propofol regimen for patients requiring mechanical ventilation: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of cipepofol vs. a dexmedetomidine plus propofol regimen for sedating intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This single-center study randomly assigned Chinese adult patients to cipepofol or dexmedetomidine/propofol groups (1:1 ratio). Cipepofol was infused intravenously at a loading dose of 0.1 mg/kg (over 4 min ± 30 s) and an initial maintenance dose of 0.3 mg/kg/h, which was adjusted within the range 0.06-0.8 mg/kg/h to produce sedation in the range of 0 to -4 on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Propofol and dexmedetomidine were infused intravenously at initial dosages of 0.3 mg/kg/h and 0.2 μg/kg/h, respectively (neither drug required a loading dose). When the maximum dexmedetomidine dose (0.7 μg/kg/h) was insufficient to achieve the target sedation depth or intolerance developed, the propofol dose was modified within the range 0.3-4.0 mg/kg/h. The primary endpoint was sedation success rate, and the non-inferiority margin was set as 10%. Results: Of 72 patients enrolled for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 71 patients were included in the full analysis set/per-protocol set (FAS/PPS). The sedation success rates for the cipepofol and dexmedetomidine/propofol groups were 100% and 97.2%, respectively, in the ITT analysis and 100% for both in the FAS/PPS. Non-inferiority was established, and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the inter-group difference was -1.34% for the ITT analysis and -9.64% for the FAS/PPS. There were no differences between groups in sedation compliance rate, extubation and recovery times, MV duration, or length of ICU stay (all Conclusion: Cipepofol was not inferior to dexmedetomidine/propofol for >24-h sedation in Chinese adult patients receiving MV in the ICU. Furthermore, cipepofol elicited fewer hypotensive events than dexmedetomidine/propofol. Large-scale, multicenter studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
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.