Cargando…
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial
BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147789/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36680620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x |
_version_ | 1785034865340579840 |
---|---|
author | Zhu, Qianmei Luo, Zhen Wang, Xia Wang, Dongxin Li, Jun Wei, Xinchuan Tang, Jun Yao, Shanglong Ouyang, Wen Zhang, Wensheng Zuo, Yunxia Wang, Xiao Liu, Jin |
author_facet | Zhu, Qianmei Luo, Zhen Wang, Xia Wang, Dongxin Li, Jun Wei, Xinchuan Tang, Jun Yao, Shanglong Ouyang, Wen Zhang, Wensheng Zuo, Yunxia Wang, Xiao Liu, Jin |
author_sort | Zhu, Qianmei |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety. METHOD: A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10147789 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101477892023-04-30 Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial Zhu, Qianmei Luo, Zhen Wang, Xia Wang, Dongxin Li, Jun Wei, Xinchuan Tang, Jun Yao, Shanglong Ouyang, Wen Zhang, Wensheng Zuo, Yunxia Wang, Xiao Liu, Jin Int J Clin Pharm Research Article BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor. AIM: To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety. METHOD: A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x. Springer International Publishing 2023-01-21 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10147789/ /pubmed/36680620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhu, Qianmei Luo, Zhen Wang, Xia Wang, Dongxin Li, Jun Wei, Xinchuan Tang, Jun Yao, Shanglong Ouyang, Wen Zhang, Wensheng Zuo, Yunxia Wang, Xiao Liu, Jin Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title | Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title_full | Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title_short | Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
title_sort | efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147789/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36680620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01529-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhuqianmei efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT luozhen efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT wangxia efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT wangdongxin efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT lijun efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT weixinchuan efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT tangjun efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT yaoshanglong efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT ouyangwen efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT zhangwensheng efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT zuoyunxia efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT wangxiao efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial AT liujin efficacyandsafetyofciprofolversuspropofolfortheinductionofanesthesiainadultpatientsamulticenterphase2aclinicaltrial |