A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Positive-Controlled, Non-Inferiority, Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Emulsified Isoflurane for Anesthesia Induction in Patients

Background Emulsified isoflurane was designed to circumvent the deficiencies of inhalation anesthetics, which have a longer time to onset, result in a higher drug consumption, and for which a specific anesthesia machine is required for clinical use. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of emulsified isoflurane with propofol for anesthesia induction in adults patients. Methods This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, positive-controlled, non-inferiority, phase III clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of emulsified isoflurane with propofol for anesthesia induction. Each patient in the emulsified isoflurane group received a single bolus injection of 12% emulsified isoflurane at a dose of 30 mg/kg, and each patient in the propofol group received a single bolus injection of 0.8% propofol at a dose of 2 mg/kg. The primary outcome of the efficacy evaluation was the proportion of participants with successful anesthesia induction, which was regarded as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score of < 1 and lack of use of other sedative drugs. A number of secondary efficacy outcomes were also assessed. Safety was monitored based on (1) adverse events, (2) repeated measurement of vital signs; (3) physical examination, (4) routine laboratory examinations of hematology, biochemistry, urine, coagulation function, and (5) 12-lead electrocardiogram. Results A total of 416 patients were enrolled ( n = 208 in each group) and 398 patients were administered study drug. The proportion of participants with successful anesthesia induction was 100% with a 95% confidence interval of − 1.9% to + 1.9% for the emulsified isoflurane and propofol groups, which met the predesigned non-inferiority criteria of 5%. The study demonstrated the non-inferiority of sedation produced by emulsified isoflurane compared to propofol. Among the secondary efficacy outcomes, emulsified isoflurane showed a better cardiovascular stability than propofol. The number of patients from the emulsified isoflurane group who experienced drug-related adverse events was significantly higher than that of patients from the propofol group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of adverse events or drug-related adverse events of grades 3–5. Conclusions Emulsified isoflurane exhibited non-inferiority of anesthesia/sedation compared to propofol in patients undergoing anesthesia induction. Clinical Trial Registration Chi