111536
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
右美托咪定对高血压患者诱导期血流动力学的影响：一项前瞻性、随机、双盲、对照研究
Authors Xiao H , Ji M, Shi X , Sun Q, Chen Z, Dong G, Ji F
Received 7 August 2025
Accepted for publication 11 December 2025
Published 16 December 2025 Volume 2025:19 Pages 11259—11267
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S559096
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor Anastasios Lymperopoulos
Hongyi Xiao,1 Mingxin Ji,2 Xinyuan Shi,3 Qingqing Sun,1 Ziyuan Chen,1 Guimin Dong,1,* Fanceng Ji1,*
1Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China; 2Qingdao Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Anaesthesiology, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, 261053, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Fanceng Ji, Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China, Email jifanceng@163.com Guimin Dong, Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China, Email dongguimin0820@163.com
Purpose: This study aims to compare the impact of ciprofol and propofol on post-induction hypotension in hypertensive patients undergoing gynecological surgery.
Patients and Methods: A total of 96 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the ciprofol group. The ciprofol group received 0.5 mg/kg for anesthesia induction, while the propofol group received 2 mg/kg. The primary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction and the area under the curve (AUC) of hypotension during the induction phase. The secondary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), the cumulative dose of vasopressors during induction, the time to loss of consciousness, BIS values, recovery time, the incidence of injection pain, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the PACU.
Results: The ciprofol group exhibited significantly better hemodynamic stability compared to the propofol group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (66.7% vs 89.6%, RR= 0.415, 95% CI= 0.189– 0.915, P=0.007) and a smaller area under the curve during induction (− 274.81± 88.41mmHg·min vs − 323.40± 101.32mmHg·min, P=0.014). Secondary outcomes revealed that ciprofol administration resulted in less pronounced MAP fluctuations (37.27± 12.83mmHg vs 44.94± 13.06mmHg, P=0.005), reduced vasopressor requirements (6.0mg [0.0– 6.0] vs 6.0mg [6.0– 6.0], P=0.007), and lower incidence of injection pain (4.2% vs 72.9%, P=0.001). While no significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness and BIS values during induction (P> 0.05), the ciprofol group demonstrated a slightly prolonged recovery time (7.0min [5.0– 8.0] vs 5.0min [4.0– 6.0], P=0.004). In the PACU, there was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups (4.2% vs 2.1%, P = 1.000).
Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.
Keywords: ciprofol, hemodynamics, hypertension, propofol, anesthesia, general
1Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China; 2Qingdao Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Anaesthesiology, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, 261053, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Fanceng Ji, Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China, Email jifanceng@163.com Guimin Dong, Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 261041, People’s Republic of China, Email dongguimin0820@163.com
Purpose: This study aims to compare the impact of ciprofol and propofol on post-induction hypotension in hypertensive patients undergoing gynecological surgery.
Patients and Methods: A total of 96 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the propofol group or the ciprofol group. The ciprofol group received 0.5 mg/kg for anesthesia induction, while the propofol group received 2 mg/kg. The primary outcomes included the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction and the area under the curve (AUC) of hypotension during the induction phase. The secondary outcomes included the change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), the cumulative dose of vasopressors during induction, the time to loss of consciousness, BIS values, recovery time, the incidence of injection pain, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the PACU.
Results: The ciprofol group exhibited significantly better hemodynamic stability compared to the propofol group, with a lower incidence of hypotension (66.7% vs 89.6%, RR= 0.415, 95% CI= 0.189– 0.915, P=0.007) and a smaller area under the curve during induction (− 274.81± 88.41mmHg·min vs − 323.40± 101.32mmHg·min, P=0.014). Secondary outcomes revealed that ciprofol administration resulted in less pronounced MAP fluctuations (37.27± 12.83mmHg vs 44.94± 13.06mmHg, P=0.005), reduced vasopressor requirements (6.0mg [0.0– 6.0] vs 6.0mg [6.0– 6.0], P=0.007), and lower incidence of injection pain (4.2% vs 72.9%, P=0.001). While no significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness and BIS values during induction (P> 0.05), the ciprofol group demonstrated a slightly prolonged recovery time (7.0min [5.0– 8.0] vs 5.0min [4.0– 6.0], P=0.004). In the PACU, there was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the two groups (4.2% vs 2.1%, P = 1.000).
Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol demonstrates superior hemodynamic stability during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.
Keywords: ciprofol, hemodynamics, hypertension, propofol, anesthesia, general