Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT)

Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.