2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Sedation in ICU Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , , PhD 2 , , PhD 3 , , PhD 4 , , PhD 5 , , PhD 6 , , PhD 7 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 9 , , PhD 10 , , PhD 11 , , PhD 12 , , PhD 13 , , PhD 14 , , PhD 15 , , PhD 16 , , PhD 17 , , PhD 18 , , PhD 19 , , PhD 20 , , PhD 21 , , PhD 1 , , PhD 1 , , PhD 1 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 1 , , PhD 22 , , PhD 1 ,
      Critical Care Medicine
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
      ciprofol, intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, noninferior, sedation

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVES:

          To determine the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol for sedating patients in ICUs who required mechanical ventilation (MV).

          DESIGN:

          A multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial.

          SETTING:

          Twenty-one centers across China from December 2020 to June 2021.

          PATIENTS:

          A total of 135 ICU patients 18 to 80 years old with endotracheal intubation and undergoing MV, who were expected to require sedation for 6–24 hours.

          INTERVENTIONS:

          One hundred thirty-five ICU patients were randomly allocated into ciprofol ( n = 90) and propofol ( n = 45) groups in a 2:1 ratio. Ciprofol or propofol were IV infused at loading doses of 0.1 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, over 4 minutes ± 30 seconds depending on the physical condition of each patient. Ciprofol or propofol were then immediately administered at an initial maintenance dose of 0.3 mg/kg/hr or 1.5 mg/kg/hr, to achieve the target sedation range of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (+1 to –2). Besides, continuous IV remifentanil analgesia was administered (loading dose: 0.5–1 μg/kg, maintenance dose: 0.02–0.15 μg/kg/min).

          MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

          Of the 135 patients enrolled, 129 completed the study. The primary endpoint-sedation success rates of ciprofol and propofol groups were 97.7% versus 97.8% in the full analysis set (FAS) and were both 100% in per-protocol set (PPS). The noninferiority margin was set as 8% and confirmed with a lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the inter-group difference of –5.98% and –4.32% in the FAS and PPS groups. Patients who received ciprofol had a longer recovery time ( p = 0.003), but there were no differences in the remaining secondary endpoints (all p > 0.05). The occurrence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or drug-related TEAEs were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05).

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Ciprofol was well tolerated, with a noninferior sedation profile to propofol in Chinese ICU patients undergoing MV for a period of 6–24 hours.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

          To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

            Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Propofol

              Propofol is an intravenous hypnotic drug that is used for induction and maintenance of sedation and general anaesthesia. It exerts its effects through potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABAA receptor, and has gained widespread use due to its favourable drug effect profile. The main adverse effects are disturbances in cardiopulmonary physiology. Due to its narrow therapeutic margin, propofol should only be administered by practitioners trained and experienced in providing general anaesthesia. Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models for propofol exist. Some are used to inform drug dosing guidelines, and some are also implemented in so-called target-controlled infusion devices, to calculate the infusion rates required for user-defined target plasma or effect-site concentrations. Most of the models were designed for use in a specific and well-defined patient category. However, models applicable in a more general population have recently been developed and published. The most recent example is the general purpose propofol model developed by Eleveld and colleagues. Retrospective predictive performance evaluations show that this model performs as well as, or even better than, PK models developed for specific populations, such as adults, children or the obese; however, prospective evaluation of the model is still required. Propofol undergoes extensive PK and PD interactions with both other hypnotic drugs and opioids. PD interactions are the most clinically significant, and, with other hypnotics, tend to be additive, whereas interactions with opioids tend to be highly synergistic. Response surface modelling provides a tool to gain understanding and explore these complex interactions. Visual displays illustrating the effect of these interactions in real time can aid clinicians in optimal drug dosing while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we provide an overview of the PK and PD of propofol in order to refresh readers’ knowledge of its clinical applications, while discussing the main avenues of research where significant recent advances have been made.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care Med
                Crit Care Med
                CCM
                Critical Care Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0090-3493
                1530-0293
                05 June 2023
                October 2023
                : 51
                : 10
                : 1318-1327
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
                [2 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
                [3 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
                [4 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Ulumuqi, China.
                [5 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
                [6 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
                [7 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First People’s Hospital of Zunyi City, Zunyi, China.
                [8 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, China.
                [9 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
                [10 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University (Xibei Hospital), Xi’an, China.
                [11 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
                [12 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Anhui Provincial Hospital, Hefei, China.
                [13 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
                [14 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
                [15 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First People’s Hospital of Nanning, Nanning, China.
                [16 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
                [17 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Qingyuan People’s Hospital, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan, China.
                [18 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
                [19 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China.
                [20 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.
                [21 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Second People’s Hospital of Hefei, Hefei, China.
                [22 ] Department of Medicine, Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China.
                Author notes
                For information regarding this article, E-mail: guanxd@ 123456mail.sysu.edu.cn
                Article
                00005
                10.1097/CCM.0000000000005920
                10497206
                37272947
                e0e12b6f-93c4-4ca2-b2a1-0549c1f05250
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.
                Award ID: N/A
                Award Recipient : Not Applicable
                Categories
                Clinical Investigations
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                ciprofol,intensive care unit,mechanical ventilation,noninferior,sedation

                Comments

                Comment on this article