Clinical effect of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients: A randomized, controlled trial

Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous anesthetic agent with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger binding to the GABAA receptor and elicits a greater enhancement of GABAA receptor‐mediated neuronal currents in vitro. The aims of the present clinica...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pharmacology research & perspectives 2023-04, Vol.11 (2), p.e01066-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Duan, Gongchen, Lan, Haiyan, Shan, Weifeng, Wu, Yini, Xu, Qiaomin, Dong, Xiaoli, Mei, Peiyi, You, Minji, Jin, Linfei, Wu, Jimin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous anesthetic agent with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger binding to the GABAA receptor and elicits a greater enhancement of GABAA receptor‐mediated neuronal currents in vitro. The aims of the present clinical trials were to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. A total of 105 elderly patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive one of three sedation regimens: (1) the C1 group (0.2 mg/kg ciprofol), (2) the C2 group (0.3 mg/kg ciprofol), (3) the C3 group (0.4 mg/kg ciprofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of various adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and injection pain. The secondary outcomes of efficacy were the success rate of general anesthesia induction, the time to anesthesia induction, and the frequency of remedial sedation was recorded in each group. Adverse events occurred in 13 patients (37%) in group C1, 8 patients (22%) in group C2, and 24 patients (68%) in group C3. Compared with group C2, the total incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in group C1 and group C3 (p 
ISSN:2052-1707
2052-1707
DOI:10.1002/prp2.1066