BMC Anesthesiology (Oct 2024)

The efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Jikai Liu,
  • Aonan Hong,
  • Jinfang Zeng,
  • Xiao Liang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02721-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction Ciprofol is a new intravenous anesthetic with a similar chemical structure to propofol. We aimed to compare the incidence of adverse actions like injection pain and time indexes of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy. We also compared anesthetists’ satisfaction during the procedure. Methods Two independent researchers (Liu and Zeng) searched the Cochrane Library, Embase databases, and PubMed for controlled clinical trials. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed with the Review Manager, Stata and the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool to evaluate methodological quality. Relative risks with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for outcomes. Results Ten trials, including 1545 patients, were examined in the current meta-analysis. During anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy, the incidence of injection pain was significantly reduced in the research group. Compared with propofol, the pooled risk difference (RD) with the use of ciprofol for injection pain for all the procedures was − 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.19), and RR for hypotension was 0.73(95% CI:0.58 to 0.92). GRADE showed this meta-analysis has moderate or low confidence. Trial sequential analysis for mortality indicated insufficient sample size for a definitive judgment for lower incidence of hypotension. Conclusion In painless endoscopy, compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited non-inferiority anesthesia/sedation in patients, and had a good safety profile with a lower incidence of pain on injection and may reduce the chance of hypotension. Trial sequential analysis suggested the need for more cases, and GRADE highlighted moderate certainty, emphasizing the necessity for further targeted RCTs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42023433627.

Keywords