Observational studyDrug design, development and therapy2026
Cipepofol versus Conventional Sedation for Pneumonia Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Real-World Retrospective Study of Effectiveness and Hemodynamic Safety.
Observational study 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. It is linked to trial NCT06514781 (The Application of Different Sedation Protocols in ICU Patients With Severe Pneumonia), which is not on this 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.
The Application of Different Sedation Protocols in ICU Patients With Severe Pneumonia
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Severe pneumonia often necessitates invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and prolonged sedation in the ICU. This real-world retrospective cohort study aimed to compare cipepofol vs conventional sedation regimens in this vulnerable population, with MV duration as the primary endpoint and hemodynamic safety as a key safety outcome. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia who received continuous sedation for more than 48 hours. Patients were classified into cipepofol or conventional sedation (propofol-, midazolam- or dexmedetomidine-based) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed at a 1:1 ratio based on age and APACHE II scores. Results: After PSM, 198 patients (99 per group) were analyzed. The primary endpoint Conclusion: In mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia requiring prolonged sedation, cipepofol did not shorten MV duration compared with propofol- or midazolam-based conventional regimens, but it significantly reduced risks for early hypotension and overall bradycardia events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06514781).
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.