Background: Propofol and etomidate are commonly used for sedation during painless gastroenteroscopy, but both have significant side effects. Cycline is a new sedative with minor side effects. This study aims to observe the clinical effects of ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in the combined painless gastroscopy and enteroscopy. Methods: We randomly divided 600 outpatients aged 18-70 years, with a body mass index 18-30 kg/m2, and an ASA score of I-II, who underwent painless gastroenteroscopy, into three groups: propol group, etomidate group, and cyclizine group, with 200 cases in each group. All groups were pre-injected with 01 ug/kg sufentanil injection intravenously. The propofol group was given 2 mg/kg propofol injection intravenously, theomidate group was given 0.2 mg/kg etomidate injection intravenously, and the cyclizine group was given 0.4 mg cyclizine injection intravenously. The injection time for all groups was 30±5 seconds. The examination began when the MOAA/S score was 0-1 or the corneal reflex disappeared. 1. We observed the incidence of injection pain, onset time, sedation success rate, incidence of movement, incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition, awakening time, PACU time, and satisfaction of the examiner and the patient in all three groups; We observed the adverse reactions such as muscle pain and intraoperative awareness in the patients of all three groups. Results: 1. There were no differences in basic information of the patients in the three groups. The sedation success rate in all three groups was 100%. There were no significant differences in the time, awakening time, and PACU time among the three groups (P>0.05); 2. The incidence of injection pain, respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition in the propofol group was higher than that in the etomidate group and the cyclizine group, with significant differences (P<.05). However, there were no significant differences between the etomidate group and the cyclizine group. The satisfaction of the patients and the exam in the cyclizine group was higher (P<0.05); 3. Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions among three groups, the incidence of muscle tremor and muscle pain in the etomidate group was significantly higher than that in the propofol group and the cycline group, with significant differences (P<0.05). Conclusion: The clinical effect of ciprofol for painless gastroenteroscopy is significantly better than that of propofol and etomidate, and suitable for promotion in outpatient painless gastroenteroscopy.
| Published in | Clinical Medicine Research (Volume 13, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14 |
| Page(s) | 95-100 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Ciprofol, Propofol, Etomidate, Gastroscopy and Enteroscopy, Clinical Effects
| [1] | Lu Liu, Zhe Sun, Haijun Hou. Analysis of the Safety and Feasibility of Propofol Combined with Etomidate for Painless Colonoscopy [J]. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 2022, 21(01): 106 - 111. |
| [2] | Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, et al. Incidence of sedation‐related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8(2): 137‐142. |
| [3] | Li J, Wang X, Liu J, et al. Comparison of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for the induction of deep sedation during gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures: A multi-centre, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled phase 3 clinical trial [J]. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2022; 131(2): 138-148. |
| [4] | Chinese Society of Anesthesiology, Chinese Medical Association; Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy, Chinese Medical Association. Expert Consensus on Sedation/Anesthesia for Digestive Endoscopy Diagnosis and Treatment in China [J]. Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology. 2014, 30(9): 920-927. |
| [5] | Xiao X, Xiao N, Zeng F, et al. Gastroscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and sufentanil with or without remimazolam [J]. Minerva Anestesiol. 2022; 88(4): 223-229. |
| [6] | Cao Y, Chi P, Zhou C, et al. Remimazolam Tosilate Sedation with Adjuvant Sufentanil in Chinese Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study [J]. Med Sci Monit. 2022; 28: e936580. |
| [7] | Wang X, Wang X, Liu J, et al. Effects of ciprofol for the induction of general anesthesia in patients scheduled for elective surgery compared to propofol: a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative study [J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022; 26(5): 1607-1617. |
| [8] | Teng Y, Ou M, Wang X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy: Phase IIa and IIb multi-center clinical trials [J]. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2021; 164: 105904. |
| [9] | Qianglin Yi, Huaizhong Mo, Hu Hui, et al. Comparison between Ciprofol and Propofol in Painless Gastroscopy for Elderly Patients [J]. Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology. 2022, 38 (07): 712-715. |
| [10] | Liao J, Li M, Huang C, et al. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of HSK3486, a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenol derivative as a general anesthetic [J]. Front Pharmacol, 2022, 13: 830791. |
| [11] | Xu Y, Zheng Y, Tang T, et al. The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study [J]. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022; 47(9): 1402-1408. |
| [12] | Li DN, Zhao GQ, Su ZB. Propofol Target-controlled Infusion in Anesthesia Induction during Painless Gastroscopy [J]. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019; 29(7): 604-607. |
APA Style
Zhao, Z., Xia, L. (2024). Comparison of the Clinical Effects of Ciprofol, Propofol, and Etomidate in the Combined Painless Gastroscopy and Enteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Medicine Research, 13(6), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14
ACS Style
Zhao, Z.; Xia, L. Comparison of the Clinical Effects of Ciprofol, Propofol, and Etomidate in the Combined Painless Gastroscopy and Enteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin. Med. Res. 2024, 13(6), 95-100. doi: 10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14,
author = {Zhifu Zhao and Leqiang Xia},
title = {Comparison of the Clinical Effects of Ciprofol, Propofol, and Etomidate in the Combined Painless Gastroscopy and Enteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
},
journal = {Clinical Medicine Research},
volume = {13},
number = {6},
pages = {95-100},
doi = {10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cmr.20241306.14},
abstract = {Background: Propofol and etomidate are commonly used for sedation during painless gastroenteroscopy, but both have significant side effects. Cycline is a new sedative with minor side effects. This study aims to observe the clinical effects of ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in the combined painless gastroscopy and enteroscopy. Methods: We randomly divided 600 outpatients aged 18-70 years, with a body mass index 18-30 kg/m2, and an ASA score of I-II, who underwent painless gastroenteroscopy, into three groups: propol group, etomidate group, and cyclizine group, with 200 cases in each group. All groups were pre-injected with 01 ug/kg sufentanil injection intravenously. The propofol group was given 2 mg/kg propofol injection intravenously, theomidate group was given 0.2 mg/kg etomidate injection intravenously, and the cyclizine group was given 0.4 mg cyclizine injection intravenously. The injection time for all groups was 30±5 seconds. The examination began when the MOAA/S score was 0-1 or the corneal reflex disappeared. 1. We observed the incidence of injection pain, onset time, sedation success rate, incidence of movement, incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition, awakening time, PACU time, and satisfaction of the examiner and the patient in all three groups; We observed the adverse reactions such as muscle pain and intraoperative awareness in the patients of all three groups. Results: 1. There were no differences in basic information of the patients in the three groups. The sedation success rate in all three groups was 100%. There were no significant differences in the time, awakening time, and PACU time among the three groups (P>0.05); 2. The incidence of injection pain, respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition in the propofol group was higher than that in the etomidate group and the cyclizine group, with significant differences (PConclusion: The clinical effect of ciprofol for painless gastroenteroscopy is significantly better than that of propofol and etomidate, and suitable for promotion in outpatient painless gastroenteroscopy.},
year = {2024}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of the Clinical Effects of Ciprofol, Propofol, and Etomidate in the Combined Painless Gastroscopy and Enteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial AU - Zhifu Zhao AU - Leqiang Xia Y1 - 2024/12/25 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14 DO - 10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14 T2 - Clinical Medicine Research JF - Clinical Medicine Research JO - Clinical Medicine Research SP - 95 EP - 100 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2326-9057 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20241306.14 AB - Background: Propofol and etomidate are commonly used for sedation during painless gastroenteroscopy, but both have significant side effects. Cycline is a new sedative with minor side effects. This study aims to observe the clinical effects of ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in the combined painless gastroscopy and enteroscopy. Methods: We randomly divided 600 outpatients aged 18-70 years, with a body mass index 18-30 kg/m2, and an ASA score of I-II, who underwent painless gastroenteroscopy, into three groups: propol group, etomidate group, and cyclizine group, with 200 cases in each group. All groups were pre-injected with 01 ug/kg sufentanil injection intravenously. The propofol group was given 2 mg/kg propofol injection intravenously, theomidate group was given 0.2 mg/kg etomidate injection intravenously, and the cyclizine group was given 0.4 mg cyclizine injection intravenously. The injection time for all groups was 30±5 seconds. The examination began when the MOAA/S score was 0-1 or the corneal reflex disappeared. 1. We observed the incidence of injection pain, onset time, sedation success rate, incidence of movement, incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition, awakening time, PACU time, and satisfaction of the examiner and the patient in all three groups; We observed the adverse reactions such as muscle pain and intraoperative awareness in the patients of all three groups. Results: 1. There were no differences in basic information of the patients in the three groups. The sedation success rate in all three groups was 100%. There were no significant differences in the time, awakening time, and PACU time among the three groups (P>0.05); 2. The incidence of injection pain, respiratory depression, circulatory inhibition in the propofol group was higher than that in the etomidate group and the cyclizine group, with significant differences (PConclusion: The clinical effect of ciprofol for painless gastroenteroscopy is significantly better than that of propofol and etomidate, and suitable for promotion in outpatient painless gastroenteroscopy. VL - 13 IS - 6 ER -
Department of Anesthesia, Deyang People's Hospital, Deyang, China
Department of Anesthesia, Deyang People's Hospital, Deyang, China
