Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol for Sedation/Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopy: A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Controlled Trial
Haiyan Lan,Weifeng Shan,Yini Wu,Qiaomin Xu,Xiaoli Dong,Peiyi Mei,Gongchen Duan,Minji You,Linfei Jin,Jimin Wu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S414243
2023-06-11
Abstract:Haiyan Lan, Weifeng Shan, Yini Wu, Qiaomin Xu, Xiaoli Dong, Peiyi Mei, Gongchen Duan, Minji You, Linfei Jin, Jimin Wu Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui City People's Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Lishui, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Jimin Wu, Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui City People's Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, No. 15, Dazhong Street, Lishui, Zhejiang Province, 323000, People's Republic of China, Email Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. Methods: A total of 149 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Group C received an induction dose of ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 0.6– 1.2 mg/kg/h to maintain BIS value between 40– 60. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0– 6.0 mg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the successful rate of hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes included the change of hemodynamic, respiratory adverse events, injection pain, body movement, recovery time, anesthetist's satisfaction, time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Results: The success rate of hysteroscopy in each group was 100%. After drug administration, the incidence of hypotension in Group C was much lower than that in Group P ( P < 0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group C (4.0%) was much lower than that in Group P (31.1%) ( P < 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and body movement in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P ( P < 0.05). The mean eyelash reflex disappearance time was less than 3 minutes in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in awakening times, anesthetist's satisfaction and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No serious adverse events occurred in any patients. Conclusion: Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative to propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. In comparison to propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less impact on hemodynamics, and results in less respiratory depression. Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, sedation, anesthesia, hysteroscopy Hysteroscopy is the most common procedure in minimally invasive gynecological techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial and other intrauterine diseases. 1 Despite the short duration of surgery, the intense pain associated with cervical dilation and endometrial curettage is excruciating, 2–4 and patients' fear and anxiety about pain require anesthetic intervention in most cases. 5,6 General anesthesia, paracervical block, and local anesthesia can be used for hysteroscopy. 7 Among these techniques, propofol combined with opioid intravenous anesthesia is used most commonly for hysteroscopic surgery. 8 This approach provides good sedation and analgesic effects for patients and also greatly reduces patients' anxiety and improves their comfort. Propofol has a rapid onset of action and short duration, and is associated with complete awakening and high patient comfort, making it suitable for outpatient surgery; 9,10 therefore, propofol has become the first choice for hysteroscopic procedures. However, propofol also has disadvantages, such as marked hemodynamic effects, respiratory depression, and painful intravenous administration. 11 Therefore, identification of the ideal sedative drug in hysteroscopic surgery remains crucial. Ciprofol (HSK 3486) is a novel 2,6 disubstituted phenol derivative that binds more tightly to the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor compared with propofol. 12 A Phase I study involving healthy Chinese participants showed that 0.4–0.9 mg/kg of ciprofol was well tolerated, with rapid onset of action and fast recovery. 13 The results of a Phase II clinical trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in colonoscopy showed that ciprofol was administered at a dose of only one-quarter to one-fifth that of propofol. Additionally, ciprofol had minimal residual effects and did not cause significant pain at the injection site. 14 Another trial of ciprofol in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) determined the sedative effects and safety of ciprofol for this patient group. 15 The current trial was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol during hysteroscopy, in the hope of providing a new safe and effective sedative drug for hysterosco -Abstract Truncated-
pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal