Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction of general anaesthesia or sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

被引:2
|
作者
Saeed, Abdallah [1 ]
Elewidi, Mariam [1 ]
Nawlo, Ahmad [2 ]
Elzahaby, Amr [1 ]
Khaled, Asmaa [1 ]
Othman, Abdalla [1 ]
Abuelazm, Mohamed [1 ]
Abdelazeem, Basel [3 ]
机构
[1] Tanta Univ, Fac Med, El Bahr St, Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Infect Dis, Boston, MA USA
[3] West Virginia Univ, Dept Cardiol, Morgantown, WV USA
关键词
Ciprofol; general anaesthesia; meta-analysis; pain; propofol; sedation; systematic review; PARALLEL-GROUP; SINGLE-BLIND; MULTICENTER; MAINTENANCE; PHASE-3;
D O I
10.4103/ija.ija_104_24
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and Aims: Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures. Methods: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; P = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; P < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.
引用
收藏
页数:32
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Chang, Yu
    Huang, Yun-Ting
    Chi, Kuan-Yu
    Huang, Yen-Ta
    PEERJ, 2023, 11
  • [32] Patient-versus clinician-controlled sedation with propofol: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kreienbuhl, Lukas
    Elvire-Pfeil-Beun
    Tramer, Martin
    SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY, 2014, 144 : 6S - 6S
  • [33] The Safety of Propofol Versus Sevoflurane for General Anesthesia in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Zhao, Ying
    Qin, Feng
    Liu, Yuhang
    Dai, Yanping
    Cen, Xiaobo
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2022, 9
  • [34] PROPOFOL VERSUS MIDAZOLAM SEDATION FOR ELECTIVE ENDOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    Lata, John
    do Monte, Epifanio S.
    Tucci, Marina
    da Ponte, Alberto M.
    Minata, Mauricio K.
    Singh, Shailendra
    de Moura, Diogo T.
    de Moura, Eduardo G.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2020, 91 (06) : AB284 - AB285
  • [35] Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Versus Etomidate for Induction of General Anesthesia: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhao, Li
    Guo, Yiping
    Zhou, Xuelei
    Mao, Wei
    Chen, Linlin
    Xie, Ying
    Li, Linji
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2024, 13
  • [36] Efficacy and safety of using cilostazol versus aspirin in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials
    Zhuang, Ping
    Huang, Yi-min
    Zheng, Zhenyong
    Zhang, Xiaodie
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2025, 55 (03) : 483 - 492
  • [37] Efficacy and safety of supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach for subclavian vein catheterisation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Imai, Eriya
    Watanabe, Jun
    Okano, Hiromu
    Yokozuka, Motoi
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 67 (06) : 486 - +
  • [38] Efficacy and safety evaluation of Shenmai injections for dilated cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Wang, Yuanping
    Liu, Qingqing
    Kong, Yanni
    Zhong, Guofu
    Wang, Dawei
    PHYTOMEDICINE, 2023, 110
  • [39] Efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Gencer, Baris
    Marston, Nicholas A.
    Im, KyungAh
    Cannon, Christopher P.
    Sever, Peter
    Keech, Anthony
    Braunwald, Eugene
    Giugliano, Robert P.
    Sabatine, Marc S.
    LANCET, 2020, 396 (10263): : 1637 - 1643
  • [40] Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Su, Naichuan
    Liu, Yan
    Yang, Xianrui
    Shi, Zongdao
    Huang, Yi
    INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL, 2014, 64 (02) : 96 - 107