Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Impact of Cipepofol versus Propofol on Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes After TAVR: An Extended Follow-Up of a Randomized 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: Patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) under general anesthesia are particularly vulnerable to hemodynamic instability. General anesthesia remains a common approach and is necessary in selected patients, although conscious sedation is increasingly used. A previous randomized trial showed greater peri-induction hemodynamic stability with cipepofol than with propofol, but whether this translates into improved clinical outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We conducted a post hoc, exploratory extended follow-up of a single-center randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to cipepofol or propofol. In-hospital analyses included 122 TAVR-treated participants (61 per group), whereas the 30-day and 1-year analyses included 118 participants with follow-up data in the full analysis set (59 per group). The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, and new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF). For this exploratory analysis, the components were grouped based on their hypothesized association with periprocedural hemodynamic instability and were also reported separately. Results: At 1 year, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 13/59 (22.0%) patients in the cipepofol group and 22/59 (37.3%) patients in the propofol group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28 to 1.10; Conclusion: In this exploratory extended follow-up, cipepofol did not significantly reduce the 1-year primary composite endpoint compared with propofol. The observed lower incidence of NOAF should be regarded as hypothesis-generating given the limited sample size, multiple comparisons, and intermittent rhythm surveillance. The applicability of these findings is limited to patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR under general anesthesia and does not extend to procedures performed under conscious sedation.
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.