Wang Zhaoxuan, Wang Siru, Liu Lu, Zhang Xiaolu, Ren Meijuan, Zhang Qianqian, Liu Chang
School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China.
Department of Pharmacy, Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Qingdao, China.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Jul 19;25(1):354. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03079-x.
Ciprofol is considered an alternative to propofol and can be used to achieve anesthesia at a lower dose with a lower incidence of adverse events. The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol used in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopes.
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were retrieved for randomized controlled trials of ciprofol and propofol used in gastrointestinal endoscopes from inception to May 10, 2024. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0. Primary outcomes encompassed a successful rate of sedation and other safety outcomes, including injection pain, hypotension, bradycardia, overall respiratory disorders, and hypoxemia. Secondary outcomes concluded time to onset of successful induction, waking time, and discharge time.
A total of 20 studies were included, involving 3779 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the successful rate of anesthesia and waking time were not significantly different between ciprofol and propofol, while ciprofol was better than propofol in injection pain (RR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.16, p < 0.001, I = 46.4%, moderate certainty), hypotension (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.77, p < 0.001, I = 49.2%, moderate certainty), bradycardia (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.85, p = 0.001, I = 0.0%, moderate certainty), hypoxemia (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.61, p < 0.001, I = 9.2%, moderate certainty), and overall respiratory disorders (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.75, p < 0.001, I = 77.1%, moderate certainty). In addition, compared to propofol, shorter time to onset of successful induction (MD: -0.16, 95% CI: -0.24 to - 0.08, p < 0.001, I = 97.2%, very low certainty) and longer discharge time (MD: 0.420, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.54, p < 0.001, I = 29.4%, moderate certainty) were related to ciprofol.
Based on the results of pooled analysis, we conclude that ciprofol takes longer for cipofol to recover after surgery, it may greatly improve the pain problem and hemodynamic stability of intravenous propofol. Therefore, we believe that ciprofol can be used as an excellent substitute for propofol.
环泊酚被认为是丙泊酚的替代品，可用于以较低剂量实现麻醉，且不良事件发生率较低。本研究的主要目的是比较环泊酚和丙泊酚在接受胃肠内镜检查患者中的疗效和安全性。
检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science和中国知网数据库，查找从开始到2024年5月10日用于胃肠内镜检查的环泊酚和丙泊酚的随机对照试验。所有统计分析均使用Stata 14.0进行。主要结局包括镇静成功率和其他安全性结局，包括注射痛、低血压、心动过缓、总体呼吸障碍和低氧血症。次要结局包括成功诱导起效时间、苏醒时间和出院时间。
共纳入20项研究，涉及3779例患者。荟萃分析结果显示，环泊酚和丙泊酚之间的麻醉成功率和苏醒时间无显著差异，而环泊酚在注射痛（RR：0.10，95%CI：0.07至0.16，p<0.001，I=46.4%，中等确定性）、低血压（RR：0.68，95%CI：0.59至0.77，p<0.001，I=49.2%，中等确定性）、心动过缓（RR：0.67，95%CI：0.52至0.85，p=0.001，I=0.0%，中等确定性）、低氧血症（RR：0.45，95%CI：0.33至0.61，p<0.001，I=9.2%，中等确定性）和总体呼吸障碍（RR：0.45，95%CI：0.27至0.75，p<0.001，I=77.1%，中等确定性）方面优于丙泊酚。此外，与丙泊酚相比，环泊酚成功诱导起效时间更短（MD：-0.16，95%CI：-0.24至-0.08，p<0.001，I=97.2%，极低确定性），出院时间更长（MD：0.420，95%CI：0.29至0.54，p<0.001，I=29.4%，中等确定性）。
基于汇总分析结果，我们得出结论，环泊酚术后恢复时间较长，它可能极大地改善静脉注射丙泊酚的疼痛问题和血流动力学稳定性。因此，我们认为环泊酚可作为丙泊酚的优质替代品。
