Skip to content
2000
image of Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Induction and Maintenance of General Anesthesia in Patients Under-going Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Objective

Ciprofol is a novel sedative-anesthetic that functions similarly to propofol. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

Methods

A total of 120 patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for pulmonary nodules under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the ciprofol group or the propofol group. Patients in the ciprofol group received an initial dose of 0.4 mg.kg-1 of ciprofol for anesthesia induction, followed by an infusion rate ranging from 0.4 mg.kg-1.h-1 to 2.4 mg.kg-1.h-1 for maintenance. In the propofol group, patients were administered an initial dose of 2.0 mg.kg-1 of propofol for induction, with a maintenance infusion rate ranging from 4.0 mg.kg-1.h-1 to 12 mg.kg-1h-1. The primary outcome measured was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes included the time to successful induction of anesthesia, changes in hemodynamics and bispectral index (BIS) within 10 minutes after the initial administration of the study medication, time to respiratory recovery and full alertness, and the incidence of adverse events.

Results

The sedation success rate was 100% in both groups. In this study, statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in the time to eyelash reflex disappearance (=0.599), induction success time (=0.431), the moment when the BIS value first fell below 60 (=0.538), the time to respiratory recovery (=0.505), or the interval until full wakefulness (=0.837). Notably, within the first 10 minutes following the initial administration of the study medication, the reduction in blood pressure was significantly more pronounced in the propofol group (<0.05). Additionally, the mean BIS value was significantly higher in the propofol group (<0.01). The required dosage of sedative medication was significantly lower in the ciprofol group (<0.001). Compared to the propofol group, the ciprofol group exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of adverse events during intubation (=0.01), a marked decrease in injection pain (=0.001), and a significant decrease in the incidence of intraoperative hypotension (<0.05).

Conclusion

Ciprofol exhibits comparable efficacy and safety profiles for both the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. Furthermore, it has been associated with a reduced dosage requirement, significantly lower mean BIS values, and a notable decrease in the incidence of injection pain and intraoperative hypotension.

Trial Registreation No

(ChiCTR2400086976).

2025 © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher. The Author(s)
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publishers. This is an open access article published under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
2025-07-07
2025-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441/BMS-CMC-2024-HT151-6334-4.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Nimmo A.F. Absalom A.R. Bagshaw O. Biswas A. Cook T.M. Costello A. Grimes S. Mulvey D. Shinde S. Whitehouse T. Wiles M.D. Guidelines for the safe practice of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA). Anaesthesia 2019 74 2 211 224 10.1111/anae.14428 30378102
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Sahinovic M.M. Struys M.M.R.F. Absalom A.R. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2018 57 12 1539 1558 10.1007/s40262‑018‑0672‑3 30019172
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang W. Zhu Z. Zheng Y. Effect and safety of propofol for sedation during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018 51 10 18 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.07.005 30059837
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Smuszkiewicz P. Wiczling P. Przybyłowski K. Borsuk A. Trojanowska I. Paterska M. Matysiak J. Kokot Z. Grześkowiak E. Bienert A. The pharmacokinetics of propofol in ICU patients undergoing long-term sedation. Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 2016 37 8 456 466 10.1002/bdd.2028 27556962
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Trapani G. Altomare C. Sanna E. Biggio G. Liso G. Propofol in anesthesia. Mechanism of action, structure-activity relationships, and drug delivery. Curr. Med. Chem. 2000 7 2 249 271 10.2174/0929867003375335 10637364
    [Google Scholar]
  6. van der Meulen J.F. Fisch C. Dreessen J.R.J. Coppus S.F.P.J. Kok H.S. Bongers M.Y. Procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) for gynecologic surgery: A systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2023 287 137 146 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 37327552
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Marik P. Propofol: Therapeutic indications and side-effects. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2004 10 29 3639 3649 10.2174/1381612043382846 15579060
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baykal Tutal Z. Propofol-ketamine combination: A choice with less complications and better hemodynamic stability compared to propofol? On a prospective study in a group of colonoscopy patients. Ir J Med Sci. 2016 185 3 699 704 10.1007/s11845‑015‑1348‑8 26329313
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coté G.A. Hovis R.M. Ansstas M.A. Waldbaum L. Azar R.R. Early D.S. Edmundowicz S.A. Mullady D.K. Jonnalagadda S.S. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010 8 2 137 142 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.008 19607937
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Euasobhon P. Dej-arkom S. Siriussawakul A. Muangman S. Sriraj W. Pattanittum P. Lumbiganon P. Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults. Cochrane Libr. 2016 2016 12 CD007874 10.1002/14651858.CD007874.pub2 26888026
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Singh A. Anjankar A.P. Propofol-related infusion syndrome: A clinical review. Cureus 2022 14 10 e30383 36407194
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee S. Dexmedetomidine: Present and future directions. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2019 72 4 323 330 10.4097/kja.19259 31220910
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Yang S.S. Gelinas C. Yim E. Li M.M.J. Kardash K. Zhang M. Lipes J. Association of intraoperative dexmedetomidine use with postoperative hypotension in unilateral hip and knee arthroplasties: A historical cohort study. Can. J. Anaesth. 2022 69 12 1459 1470 10.1007/s12630‑022‑02339‑5 36224507
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Cassai A. Sella N. Geraldini F. Zarantonello F. Pettenuzzo T. Pasin L. Iuzzolino M. Rossini N. Pesenti E. Zecchino G. Munari M. Navalesi P. Boscolo A. Preoperative dexmedetomidine and intraoperative bradycardia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2022 75 3 245 254 10.4097/kja.21359 35016498
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Qin L. Ren L. Wan S. Liu G. Luo X. Liu Z. Li F. Yu Y. Liu J. Wei Y. Design, synthesis, and evaluation of novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivatives as general anesthetics. J. Med. Chem. 2017 60 9 3606 3617 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00254 28430430
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bian Y. Zhang H. Ma S. Jiao Y. Yan P. Liu X. Ma S. Xiong Y. Gu Z. Yu Z. Huang C. Miao L. Mass balance, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous HSK3486, a novel anaesthetic, administered to healthy subjects. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021 87 1 93 105 10.1111/bcp.14363 32415708
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hung K.C. Chen J.Y. Wu S.C. Huang P.Y. Wu J.Y. Liu T.H. Liu C.C. Chen I.W. Sun C.K. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation. Front. Pharmacol. 2023 14 1225288 10.3389/fphar.2023.1225288 37818194
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Liao J. Li M. Huang C. Yu Y. Chen Y. Gan J. Xiao J. Xiang G. Ding X. Jiang R. Li P. Yang M. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of HSK3486, a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative as a general anesthetic. Front. Pharmacol. 2022 13 830791 10.3389/fphar.2022.830791 35185584
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wei A. Yang L. Ma S. Jin G. Yang M. Zhou J. A case report of ciprofol overdose during anesthesia/analgesia and literature review: Clinical presentation, blood pressure, and management. J. Int. Med. Res. 2022 50 11 03000605221132466 10.1177/03000605221132466 36366740
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Petkar S. Bele A. Priya V. Bawiskar D. Pharmacological insights and clinical applications of ciprofol: A narrative review. Cureus 2024 16 8 e68034 10.7759/cureus.68034 39347129
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Wei Y. Qiu G. Lei B. Qin L. Chu H. Lu Y. Zhu G. Gao Q. Huang Q. Qian G. Liao P. Luo X. Zhang X. Zhang C. Li Y. Zheng S. Yu Y. Tang P. Ni J. Yan P. Zhou Y. Li P. Huang X. Gong A. Liu J. Oral delivery of propofol with methoxymethylphosphonic acid as the delivery vehicle. J. Med. Chem. 2017 60 20 8580 8590 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01133 28968087
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lu M. Liu J. Wu X. Zhang Z. Ciprofol: A novel alternative to propofol in clinical intravenous anesthesia? BioMed Res. Int. 2023 2023 1 7443226 10.1155/2023/7443226 36714027
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Wen J. Liu C. Ding X. Tian Z. Jiang W. Wei X. Liu X. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) for procedural sedation and anesthesia induction in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 2023 9 12 e22634 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22634 38125496
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gan T.J. Bertoch T. Habib A.S. Yan P. Zhou R. Lai Y.L. Liu X. Essandoh M. Daley W.L. Gelb A.W. Comparison of the efficacy of HSK3486 and propofol for induction of general anesthesia in adults: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Anesthesiology 2024 140 4 690 700 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004886 38150544
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhong J. Zhang J. Fan Y. Zhu M. Zhao X. Zuo Z. Zhou X. Miao C. Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia in non-operating room settings. J. Clin. Anesth. 2023 85 111047 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.111047 36599219
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Teng Y. Ou M. Wang X. Zhang W. Liu X. Liang Y. Li K. Wang Y. Ouyang W. Weng H. Li J. Yao S. Meng J. Shangguan W. Zuo Y. Zhu T. Liu B. Liu J. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy: Phase IIa and IIb multi-center clinical trials. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021 164 105904 10.1016/j.ejps.2021.105904 34116176
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Qin K. Qin W-Y. Ming S-P. Ma X.F. Du X.K. Effect of ciprofol on induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022 26 14 5063 5071 35916802
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sun X. Zhang M. Zhang H. Fei X. Bai G. Li C. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for long-term sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICUs: A prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled protocol. Front. Pharmacol. 2023 14 1235709 10.3389/fphar.2023.1235709 37670942
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ishimaru T. Kanamori Y. Fujino A. Yoneda A. Fujiogi M. Yamamoto Y. Kano M. Koinuma G. Deie K. Kawashima H. Comparison of postoperative respiratory function between patients after thoracoscopic and open lobectomy. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 2024 34 4 376 379 10.1089/lap.2023.0244 38407921
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Takeuchi M. Endo H. Kawakubo H. Matsuda S. Kikuchi H. Kanaji S. Kumamaru H. Miyata H. Ueno H. Seto Y. Watanabe M. Doki Y. Kitagawa Y. No difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy: A retrospective cohort study using a nationwide Japanese database. Esophagus 2024 21 1 11 21 10.1007/s10388‑023‑01032‑w 38038806
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Yang G. Ren M.Z. Xin X.B. Niu Y-J. Wang T. Effects of thoracoscopic lobectomy on surgical wound infection in patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Int. Wound J. 2024 21 2 e14684 10.1111/iwj.14684
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Szabo Z. Fabo C. Oszlanyi A. Hawchar F. Géczi T. Lantos J. Furák J. Anesthetic (r)evolution from the conventional concept to the minimally invasive techniques in thoracic surgery-Narrative review. J. Thorac. Dis. 2022 14 8 3045 3060 10.21037/jtd‑22‑80 36071785
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Feldheiser A. Conroy P. Bonomo T. Cox B. Garces T.R. Spies C. Development and feasibility study of an algorithm for intraoperative goaldirected haemodynamic management in noncardiac surgery. J. Int. Med. Res. 2012 40 4 1227 1241 10.1177/147323001204000402 22971475
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mitzman B. Beller J.P. Edgar L. Thoracic surgery milestones 2.0: Rationale and revision. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020 160 5 1399 1404 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.12.132 32245669
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Guo N. Cao J. Duan M. Zhou F. Wang W. Xu L. Wei C. Song X. Effects of ciprofol infusion on hemodynamics during induction and maintenance of anesthesia and on postoperative recovery in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial. PLoS One 2024 19 7 e0305478 10.1371/journal.pone.0305478 38985796
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Walsh C.T. Propofol: Milk of Amnesia. Cell 2018 175 1 10 13 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.031 30217361
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kreuzer M. Butovas S. García P.S. Schneider G. Schwarz C. Rudolph U. Antkowiak B. Drexler B. Propofol affects cortico-hippocampal interactions via β3 subunit- containing GABAA receptors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 16 5844 10.3390/ijms21165844 32823959
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Feng Y. Chen X-B. Zhang Y-L. Chang P. Zhang W.S. Propofol decreased the etomidate-induced myoclonus in adult patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmaco. 2023 27 4 1322 1335 36876671
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hong J.T. Park S.W. Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Medicine 2023 102 6 e32876 10.1097/MD.0000000000032876 36820568
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Deng J. Li M-T. Yang M-C. Wen Z.M. Li X.K. Zhu C.Y. Wang T. Yan T. Tang M. Pu Y. Zuo H.Y. Different sedation profiles with ciprofol compared to propofol represented by objective sedation level assessments by BIS and its acute hemodynamic impact in 3 escalated doses of ciprofol and propofol in healthy subjects: A single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-stage, 2-way crossover trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmaco. 2023 27 17 7914 7923 10.26355/eurrev_202309_33550 37750620
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu L. Wang K. Yang Y. Hu M. Chen M. Liu X. Yan P. Wu N. Xiang X. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and exposure-response analysis of ciprofol in the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective surgery: A prospective dose optimization study. J. Clin. Anesth. 2024 92 111317 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111317 37976683
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Qin X. Lu X. Tang L. Wang C. Xue J. Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2023 13 5 e071438 10.1136/bmjopen‑2022‑071438 37258073
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Akhtar S.M.M. Fareed A. Ali M. Khan M.S. Ali A. Mumtaz M. Kirchoff R. Asghar M.S. Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT). J. Clin. Anesth. 2024 94 111425 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425 38412619
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu Y. Peng Z. Liu S. Yu X. Zhu D. Zhang L. Wen J. An Y. Zhan L. Wang X. Kang Y. Pan A. Yan J. Zhang L. Liu F. Zeng J. Lin Q. Sun R. Yu J. Wang H. Yao L. Chen C. Liu N. Nie Y. Lyu J. Wu K. Wu J. Liu X. Guan X. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol sedation in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial. Crit. Care Med. 2023 51 10 1318 1327 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005920 37272947
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Teng Y. Ou M-C. Wang X. Zhang W.S. Liu X. Liang Y. Zuo Y.X. Zhu T. Liu B. Liu J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ciprofol emulsion in Chinese subjects: A single center, open-label, single-arm dose-escalation phase 1 study. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021 13 12 13791 13802 35035718
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Picard P. Tramèr M.R. Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: A quantitative systematic review. Anesth. Analg. 2000 90 4 963 969 10735808
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim J. Kim D. Lee H.G. Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for preventing propofol injection pain during induction of balanced anesthesia. Anesth. Pain Med. 2020 15 2 152 156 10.17085/apm.2020.15.2.152 33329807
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wu Q. Xu F. Wang J. Jiang M. Efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with placebo and other medications for preventing propofol injection pain in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pain Res. 2024 17 459 476 10.2147/JPR.S440250 38318331
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Doenicke A.W. Roizen M.F. Rau J. Kellermann W. Babl J. Reducing pain during propofol injection: The role of the solvent. Anesth. Analg. 1996 82 3 472 474 8623945
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hu C. Ou X. Teng Y. Shu S. Wang Y. Zhu X. Kang Y. Miao J. Sedation effects produced by a ciprofol initial infusion or bolus dose followed by continuous maintenance infusion in healthy subjects: A phase 1 trial. Adv. Ther. 2021 38 11 5484 5500 10.1007/s12325‑021‑01914‑4 34559359
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Raja S.N. Carr D.B. Cohen M. The Revised IASP definition of pain: Concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain 2020 161 9 1976 1982 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939 32694387
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Robinson B.J. Ebert T.J. O’Brien T.J. Colinco M.D. Muzi M. Mechanisms whereby propofol mediates peripheral vasodilation in humans. Sympathoinhibition or direct vascular relaxation? Anesthesiology 1997 86 1 64 72 10.1097/00000542‑199701000‑00010 9009941
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kanaya N. Gable B. Wickley P.J. Murray P.A. Damron D.S. Experimental conditions are important determinants of cardiac inotropic effects of propofol. Anesthesiology 2005 103 5 1026 1034 10.1097/00000542‑200511000‑00017 16249677
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
Loading
Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Induction and Maintenance of General Anesthesia in Patients Under-going Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Bentham Science Publishers ; https://doi.org/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673352340250623105441
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keywords: propofol ; bispectral index ; bradycardia ; Ciprofol ; thoracoscopic surgery ; general anesthesia

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test