120017
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.6 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 4.3 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 3.2 Infect Drug Resist
- 4.1 Clin Interv Aging
- 6.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 4.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 8.7 Int J Nanomed
- 2.5 Int J Women's Health
- 3.2 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.4 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.6 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.6 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 3.1 J Pain Res
- 3.5 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 4.5 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 2.4 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.6 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.6 J Inflamm Res
- 2.3 Int J Gen Med
- 3.9 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.3 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.5 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 3.0 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
环泊酚用于心脏手术后危重患者镇静的有效性和安全性：一项单中心、前瞻性、随机对照试验
Authors Guo L , Hong M, Li P, Du W, Li Y, Li J
Received 20 September 2025
Accepted for publication 3 February 2026
Published 10 February 2026 Volume 2026:20 568956
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S568956
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Prof. Dr. Georgios Panos
Lulu Guo,1,* Min Hong,1,* Pingping Li,2,* Wenjing Du,1 Yongshuai Li,1 Jiaqiong Li2
1Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China; 2Xuzhou Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Jiaqiong Li, The Xuzhou Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86-18952170393, Email lijiaqiongdoc@126.com
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery.
Patients and Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 123 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or valve surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (Group C) or propofol (Group P) for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Midazolam was administered if additional sedation was required, and remifentanil was used for analgesia. Sedation and analgesia were titrated to a target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of − 2 to +1 and a Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) score < 3. The primary endpoint was the mean sedation compliance rate, defined as the percentage of RASS scores within the target range during the initial 24 hours. Secondary endpoints included safety events, extubation time, length of ICU stay, mortality, delirium incidence, and postoperative recovery.
Results: In the per-protocol (PP) population, sedation compliance was 92.77% (Group C) and 94.30% (Group P). Ciprofol showed non-inferior sedation to propofol in cardiac surgery patients; the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for rate difference (RD) exceeded the − 8% non-inferiority margin in both PP and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The incidence of hypotension was numerically lower in Group C (31.3% vs 40.7%; P = 0.276), with no significant differences in other safety or secondary outcomes (all P > 0.05).
Conclusion: In summary, ciprofol provides non-inferior sedation efficacy and a comparable safety profile to propofol in critically ill patients following cardiac surgery. A numerical trend toward lower hypotension incidence was observed with ciprofol, which warrants further validation in future studies.
Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, cardiac surgery, intensive care, sedation, safety
1Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China; 2Xuzhou Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Jiaqiong Li, The Xuzhou Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86-18952170393, Email lijiaqiongdoc@126.com
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery.
Patients and Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 123 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or valve surgery were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (Group C) or propofol (Group P) for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Midazolam was administered if additional sedation was required, and remifentanil was used for analgesia. Sedation and analgesia were titrated to a target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of − 2 to +1 and a Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) score < 3. The primary endpoint was the mean sedation compliance rate, defined as the percentage of RASS scores within the target range during the initial 24 hours. Secondary endpoints included safety events, extubation time, length of ICU stay, mortality, delirium incidence, and postoperative recovery.
Results: In the per-protocol (PP) population, sedation compliance was 92.77% (Group C) and 94.30% (Group P). Ciprofol showed non-inferior sedation to propofol in cardiac surgery patients; the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for rate difference (RD) exceeded the − 8% non-inferiority margin in both PP and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The incidence of hypotension was numerically lower in Group C (31.3% vs 40.7%; P = 0.276), with no significant differences in other safety or secondary outcomes (all P > 0.05).
Conclusion: In summary, ciprofol provides non-inferior sedation efficacy and a comparable safety profile to propofol in critically ill patients following cardiac surgery. A numerical trend toward lower hypotension incidence was observed with ciprofol, which warrants further validation in future studies.
Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, cardiac surgery, intensive care, sedation, safety