Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study

BMC Anesthesiology volume 24, Article number: 2 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

Methods

We included 25 patients aged 18–64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18–28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon’s up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients’ recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.

Results

The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients’ recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%.

Conclusion

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

Trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

Peer Review reports

Background

As the gold standard for diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases, digestive endoscopy has received considerable attention. Compared with ordinary gastroscopy, gastroscopy with anesthesia brings great benefits [1]. Despite all its advantages, painless gastroscopy possesses disadvantages that could not be ignored. For example, excessive sedation may delay patient recovery, prolong hospitalization, increase the overall cost of endoscopy, and increase the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular complications [1]. Thus, it is particularly important to explore an optimal solution that can improve patient comfort and reduce adverse reactions caused by anesthetics during endoscopic exams.

Propofol is currently one of the most used intravenous anesthetics for outpatient gastroenteroscopy. However, in clinical application, it has limitations of a narrow therapeutic window, dose-dependent inhibition of cardiovascular and respiratory functions and a high incidence of injection site pain, which seriously affects patient satisfaction [2]. Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic with a chemical structure similar to propofol. It has a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery, a high potency, a wide therapeutic window, slight inhibitory effects on respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Such advantages render it more suitable for outpatient surgeries [9]. There has been confirmed that an intravenous anesthetic combined with a low-dose analgesic enjoys significant merits in anesthesia for gastroscopy [10], and alfentanil, among all analgesics, demonstrates sound effectiveness in such scenario [11].

Due to the pharmacological characteristics of ciprofol and alfentanil, combining the two agents may be the optimal anesthesia for gastroscopy. However, there is currently no relevant report on the recommended dose of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in such scenario. Chen et al. [12] found 7 µg/kg of alfentanil combined with an intravenous anesthetic to be the best analgesic strategy for gastroscopy anesthesia. We conducted a pre-test with reference to the recommended dose of Chen et al. and found that alfentanil 7 µg/kg was effective for gastroscopy anesthesia, so we combined ciprofol with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil to determine its effective doses.

On the basis of previous preliminary experiments, this study aims to explore the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety during endoscopy, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

Methods

Ethics and registration

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University (approval number: LW202051), and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (registration number: ChiCTR2200061727, 1/7/2021). The research protocol was carried out under the guidance of relevant guidelines. All patients or their families signed informed consent.

Patient selection

This study is a prospective, single-blind, single-center research carried out in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University. Participants underwent painless gastroscopy in our hospital from July to August 2022. To ensure homogeneity, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study are as follows. Patients included were those aged 18–64 years of either sex, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18–28 kg/m2, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. Exclusion criteria include presence of difficult airway, allergy to the anesthetic used, history of alcohol, sedative or analgesic abuse, mental illness, pregnant and lactating women. Patients who required manual control of ventilation or whose gastroscopy lasted more than 30 min were excluded.

Study design

To ensure accurate dosing, we used 0.9% sodium chloride injection to dilute alfentanil (Yichang Renfu Pharmaceutical, China, 13S11041) to 50 µg/ml; ciprofol (Liaoning Hesco Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., China, 20211104) was diluted to 1.25 mg/ml with 0.9% sodium chloride injection according to its Instructions for Use.

According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline, all patients routinely fasted for solids for at least 6 h and fasted for water for at least 2 h [13]. Venous access was established when patients entered the endoscopy room. Patients lay on their left sides before being connected to a monitor (Bene View N15 OR monitor, Myriad Biomedical Electronics Co., Shenzhen, China) for continuous monitoring of electrocardiogram (ECG), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate (HR). All indicators were measured three times, and the average of each was determined as the baseline value. 3-5 min before the start of gastroscopy, the patients were given nasal cannula for oxygenation (4–6 L/min) in a spontaneous breathing mode and continued until the end of the examination and were fully awake.

Intervention and remedial measures

In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon’s up-and-down method with an arithmetic sequence. The modified Dixon’s up-and-down design is a classic method to explore the median effective dose of an agent where the dosage of a participant is determined based on the response of the previous one. The biggest advantage of this method is that it only needs 1/4 to1/3 of the sample size of the traditional method (usually ≥ 6 pairs of negative-positive responses are recommended) to draw the same reliable conclusions [14]. According to relevant literature and preliminary experiments, the initial dose of ciprofol was 0.30 mg/kg with an increment of 0.02 mg/kg [5]. Alfentanil was injected intravenously at 7 µg/kg (administration duration 30 s), followed by intravenous administration of ciprofol at a uniform speed for 30 s, and a gastroscope was inserted 2 min after the end of dosing, that is, when the plasma concentration of ciprofol reached its peak [9]. When the insertion response of one participant was positive, an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. The definition of a positive response referred to reactions such as body movement, coughing, and eye opening during gastroscopy insertion [15]. All gastroscopic exams were performed by endoscopists with rich experience and mature technique who had been engaged in endoscopy for more than 3 years. All anesthesia operations were completed by the same anesthesiologist, and another anesthesiologist who was not aware of the research oversaw data documentation.

The depth of sedation was evaluated using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alert Score (MOAA/S) (see Additional Supplementary Table 1) after each successful gastroscope insertion and before the completion of the endoscopic exam. Studies have shown that a MOAA/S ≤ 2 means that patients meet all requirements of endoscopy [16]. For patients showing positive responses during endoscope insertion or the MOAA/S score was above 2 points anytime during the exam, ciprofol 0.05–0.2 mg/kg would be injected intravenously to deepen the anesthesia (administration duration of 10 s, each additional dose should be given with an interval ≥ 2 min, and no more than 5 additions per 15 min) [9], until the completion of endoscopy. In case of bradycardia where HR < 50 beats/min during the exam, 0.5 mg of atropine would be administered intravenously. For hypotension (30% drop in blood pressure from preoperative baseline), ephedrine would be injected intravenously to maintain blood pressure. When patients’ SpO2 dropped below 90%, oxygenation would be provided by either jaw lift or pressurized mask ventilation, and an oropharyngeal airway would be established when necessary. Depending on the degree of hypoxia in the patient, the decision to terminate the test is made.

Indicators

Primary indicators

The ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil.

Secondary indicators

MAP, HR and SpO2 at T0 (patients entering the endoscopy room), T1 (1 min after ciprofol injection), T2 (gastroscope inserting into the pharyngeal cavity), T3 (immediately after gastroscope withdrawal), and T4 (patients were fully awake); recovery time, discharge time; occurrence of hypotension (30% or more drop in blood pressure from preoperative baseline), SpO2 below 90%, intravenous injection site pain, muscle stiffness, nausea and vomiting, intraoperative awareness, restlessness during recovery, delayed recovery, and other adverse reactions.

Recovery time was defined as the time from the last intravenous injection of ciprofol to two consecutive MOAA/S ≥ 4 evaluations (assessed every 1 min). The modified Aldrete score (see Additional Supplementary Table 2) is used to evaluate whether the patient met the criteria for discharge [17]. Usually, patients with an Aldrete score ≥ 9 can be discharged. The discharge time was defined as the time from complete recovery to meeting all discharge requirements. Intravenous injection pain was defined as avoidance movements in the ipsilateral upper extremity or complaints of pain at the injection site during ciprofol administration. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) (see Additional Supplementary Table 3) was applied to evaluate the existence of agitation during the recovery period. A RASS score 1–4 points translates into positive agitation [18].

Sample size

The modified Dixon’s up and down method requires at least 6 pairs of negative-positive responses to calculate a reliable ED50 [14]. This study was stopped when negative and positive responses alternated 8 times. A total of 25 patients were included, and the sample size was reliable.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, U.S.A.). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for normal distribution examination. Normally distributed indicators were described as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages (%). Data at different time points were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA. ED50, ED95 and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Probit method; based on the probability model, the fitting equation was derived and the dose-effect curve was drawn. The up-and-down dose-finding curve and the dose-effect fitting curve were drawn using Microsoft Excel 2016 software. A P value < 0.05 is statistically significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 25 cases were included in this study. The participant flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1. Demographic characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1, and no cases were excluded.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Participant flow diagram (Dixon’s up and down method)

Full size image
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of patients
Full size table

Of the 25 patients, 13 had positive responses and 12 had negative responses. Results of the up-and-down experiment are shown in Fig. 2. The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 μg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion was 0.217 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.203–0.234 mg/kg), and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.232–0.339 mg/kg). The dose-effect fitting curve is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Dixon’s up‑and‑down method

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The dose–effect curve, Probit (p) = -11.927 + 54.896X. (The covariate X, which represents the estimate dosage, is converted using a logarithm with base 10). Horizontal bars denote 95% CI for ED50 and ED95

Full size image

Changes in patients’ vital signs are shown in Table 2. Compared with T0, MAP significantly decreased at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (P < 0.001); HR slowed down at T2 (P < 0.05).

Table 2 Patients’ vital signs at different time points (n = 25)
Full size table

The recovery time was 11.04 ± 1.49 min, and the discharge time was 9.64 ± 2.38 min. Among all patients, 2 (8%) had hypotension, and 1 (4%) had SpO2 < 90% (the overall incidence of adverse reaction was 12%), and they returned to normal quickly after ephedrine injection to boost blood pressure and jaw lift for oxygenation, respectively. No anesthesia-related adverse events occurred (such as bradycardia, injection pain, muscle stiffness, nausea and vomiting, intraoperative awareness, restlessness during recovery, and delayed recovery).

Discussion

Results showed that the ED50 of ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Huang et al. [19] argued that a sound anesthetic effect could be induced with 0.6 mg/kg of ciprofol when used alone in gastroscopy. In our study, the ED95 of ciprofol was only 1/3 to 1/2 of the abovementioned recommended dose, reflecting the advantage of combination strategy in reducing intravenous anesthetic dose, which is in line with expectations [10]. Besides, our ED95 is also lower than the reported recommendation of 0.4 mg/kg to meet all anesthesia requirements of gastroscopy when combined with 0.1 μg/kg of sufentanil [19], which can be partially explained by our small increment and accurate calculation. The use of different opioid analgesics in these studies which may lead to variations in the effective dose of ciprofol can also play a role.

The overall incidence of adverse reactions of the current study was 12%, significantly lower than the 19.3% and 16.1% reported by Huang [19] and Teng [5], respectively. Hypotension occurred in 8% of patients in this research and hypoxemia occurred in 4%, which were rapidly resolved after symptomatic treatment. It was consistent with the finding of Teng and Zhong. Teng [5] found that the incidence of ciprofol hypotension was lower than propofol (3.0% vs 10.0%), and Zhong [3] found that the incidence of ciprofol hypoxemia was lower than propofol (10.1% vs 2.9%). The above research illustrates that ciprofol may slightly impact the circulation and respiratory systems when used for endoscopic exams [5]. Ciprofol may cause circulatory and respiratory depression for the same reasons as propofol, both by inhibiting myocardial contraction or vascular tension and reducing tidal volume [20, 21], but its specific mechanism needs further exploration. And the mild inhibitory effect of ciprofol on the respiratory and circulatory systems may be related to its high potency, resulting in a lower dose [8]. The incidence of hypotension(8% vs 25%) and SpO2 < 90% (4% vs 6%) was lower in our study than Yi’s [22], which may be related to the fact that Yi’s study population was elderly, and it may also related to the fact that our study compounded alfentanil, which has a milder effect on respiratory circulation than sufentanil [11]. Although the incidence of adverse reactions in our study was low, both MAP and HR decreased after anesthesia induction. Thus, anesthesiologists need to strengthen perioperative monitoring. Generally, ciprofol combined with alfentanil is a relatively safe anesthesia strategy for gastroscopy.

Severe intravenous injection pain in the perioperative period could significantly aggravate patients’ tension and anxiety, directly or indirectly affect the stability of anesthesia induction, and seriously affect patients’ willingness to seek medical treatment and their experience of anesthesia [23]. In our study, none of the 25 patients experienced obvious pain from intravenous injection, which was consistent with the ciprofol’s phase III clinical trial [4]. That is, the incidence of ciprofol injection pain is significantly lower than that of propofol (4.4% vs 39.4%). The absence of obvious intravenous pain in this study could be explained by differences in the three-dimensional structure of ciprofol, dilution with normal saline, and early intravenous injection of short-acting analgesics [24,25,26].

The up-and-down design is a classic method to explore the median effective dose of an agent where the dosage of a participant is determined based on the response of the previous one. The tested dose is approaching the actual ED50 quickly, which not only saves manpower and time, but also limits the number of participants receiving the suboptimal regimen. In addition, the sample size required is only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the traditional method (usually ≥ 6 pairs of negative-positive responses are recommended) to draw equally reliable conclusions [14]. The more folds the more accurate the results are [27]. Therefore, in order to improve the reliability of the results, we finally decided to stop our study with 8 folds. In this study, an arithmetic increase/decrease was adopted after the initial dose of ciprofol was determined by preliminary experiments to ensure the accuracy of ciprofol dosing and reduce the difficulty of dispensing [28].

There are some advantages of our study. The greatest strength of our study is that we used a small sample size to explore the ED50 and ED95 of newly marketed clinical drugs for gastroscopy, and these precise values can provide a reference for the rational use of drugs in the clinic. Also, the analgesic we compounded was alfentanil, whose benefits in painless gastroscopy anesthesia are well documented [11].

Our study also has some limitations. First, the 95% CI of ED50 and ED95 in our study ranged widely, so further research is needed to determine the optimal dose of ciprofol for painless gastroscopy. Second, we only discussed the effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil for the general population to inhibit gastroscope insertion responses, and age and gender had an impact on drug metabolism [29, 30]. Further studies are needed to explore effective doses for other populations. Third, the sample size of 25 patients, while adequate for the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, is relatively small for generalizing the findings. And more, our findings to prevent response to insertion of gastroscope are limited to ciprofol plus alfentanil and cannot be extrapolated when ciprofol is administered alone or in combination with sedatives or other opioids.

Conclusion

In summary, the ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologist

BMI:

Body mass index

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

NIBP:

Noninvasive blood pressure

MAP:

Mean arterial pressure

SpO2 :

Blood oxygen saturation

RR:

Respiratory rate

HR:

Heart rate

ASGE:

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

MOAA/S:

Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation

RASS:

Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale

References

  1. Müller M, Wehrmann T. How best to approach endoscopic sedation? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8(9):481–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sahinovic MM, Struys M, Absalom AR. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(12):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhong J, Zhang J, Fan Y, Zhu M, Zhao X, Zuo Z, Zhou X, Miao C. Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia in non-operating room settings. J Clin Anesth. 2023;85:111047.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Luo Z, Tu H, Zhang X, Wang X, Ouyang W, Wei X, Zou X, Zhu Z, Li Y, Shangguan W, Wu H, Wang Y, Guo Q. Efficacy and safety of HSK3486 for anesthesia/sedation in patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy: a multicenter, double-blind, propofol-controlled, randomized, phase 3 study. CNS Drugs. 2022;36(3):301–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Teng Y, Ou M, Wang X, Zhang W, Liu X, Liang Y, Li K, Wang Y, Ouyang W, Weng H, Li J, Yao S, Meng J, Shangguan W, Zuo Y, Zhu T, Liu B, Liu J. Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the sedation/anesthesia in patients undergoing colonoscopy: phase IIa and IIb multi-center clinical trials. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2021;164:105904.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ludbrook G, Li F, Sleigh J, Liang Y. Assessments of onset and duration of drug effects and pharmacokinetics by dose level of HSK3486, a new sedative-hypnotic agent, in healthy female/male subjects: a phase I multiarm randomized controlled clinical trial: retraction. Anesth Analg. 2021;133(1):e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bian Y, Zhang H, Ma S, Jiao Y, Yan P, Liu X, Ma S, Xiong Y, Gu Z, Yu Z, Huang C, Miao L. Mass balance, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous HSK3486, a novel anaesthetic, administered to healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(1):93–105.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wei Y, Qiu G, Lei B, Qin L, Chu H, Lu Y, Zhu G, Gao Q, Huang Q, Qian G, Liao P, Luo X, Zhang X, Zhang C, Li Y, Zheng S, Yu Y, Tang P, Ni J, Yan P, Zhou Y, Li P, Huang X, Gong A, Liu J. Oral delivery of propofol with methoxymethylphosphonic acid as the delivery vehicle. J Med Chem. 2017;60(20):8580–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu J, Wang DX, Zuo YX, Mi WD, Yao SL, Yu WF. Guidelines on clinical application of ciprofol. Chin J Anesthesiol. 2021;41(2):129–32.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yoon SW, Choi GJ, Lee OH, Yoon IJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC. Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2018;30(5):580–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roozekrans M, van der Schrier R, Aarts L, Sarton E, van Velzen M, Niesters M, Dahan A, Olofsen E. Benefit versus severe side effects of opioid analgesia: novel utility functions of probability of analgesia and respiratory depression. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(5):932–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen JJ, Zhou XH, Chen J, Zhang Z, Chen MH, Quan J, Lai DY, Hu TX. Effects of different doses of alfentanil combined with propofol on painless gastroscopy. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2022;38(1):46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Early DS, Lightdale JR, Vargo JJ 2nd, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Evans JA, Fisher DA, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR, Pasha SF, Saltzman JR, Shergill AK, Cash BD, DeWitt JM. Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(2):327–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dixon WJ. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1991;15(1):47–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hayes J, Matava C, Pehora C, El-Beheiry H, Jarvis S, Finkelstein Y. Determination of the median effective dose of propofol in combination with different doses of ketamine during gastro-duodenoscopy in children: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(2):453–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liou JY, Ting CK, Teng WN, Mandell MS, Tsou MY. Adaptation of non-linear mixed amount with zero amount response surface model for analysis of concentration-dependent synergism and safety with midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol sedation. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(6):1209–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamaguchi D, Morisaki T, Sakata Y, Mizuta Y, Nagatsuma G, Inoue S, Shimakura A, Jubashi A, Takeuchi Y, Ikeda K, Tanaka Y, Yoshioka W, Hino N, Ario K, Tsunada S, Esaki M. Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and the modified Aldrete score. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):445.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, Brophy GM, O’Neal PV, Keane KA, Tesoro EP, Elswick RK. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):1338–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hung FN, Xu C, Cui SS, Xia ZY, Lei SQ. Comparison of anesthetic effects between ciprofol alone and combined with low⁃dose sufentanil in painless gastroscopy. J Wuhan Univ (Medical Edition). 2023;44(5):585–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kanaya N, Gable B, Wickley PJ, Murray PA, Damron DS. Experimental conditions are important determinants of cardiac inotropic effects of propofol. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(5):1026–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagakawa T, Yamazaki M, Hatakeyama N, Stekiel TA. The mechanisms of propofol-mediated hyperpolarization of in situ rat mesenteric vascular smooth muscle. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(6):1639–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yi QL, Mo HZ, Hu H, Xiang M. Comparison of ciprofol and propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. J Clin Anesth. 2022;38(07):712–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Martinez RA, Hurff A, DeGeorge KC, DeGeorge BR Jr. How to minimize the pain of local anesthetic administration. J Fam Pract. 2020;69(4):172–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McIntosh MP, Rajewski RA. Comparative canine pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of fospropofol disodium injection, propofol emulsion, and cyclodextrin-enabled propofol solution following bolus parenteral administration. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(9):3547–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jalota L, Kalira V, George E, Shi YY, Hornuss C, Radke O, Pace NL, Apfel CC. Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:d1110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore GD, Walker AM, MacLaren R. Fospropofol: a new sedative-hypnotic agent for monitored anesthesia care. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(11):1802–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pace NL, Stylianou MP. Advances in and limitations of up-and-down methodology: a précis of clinical use, study design, and dose estimation in anesthesia research. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(1):144–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhao TY, Chen D, Sun H, Xu ZX, Lyu S, Wang T, Liu LL. Moderate sedation with single-dose remimazolam tosilate in elderly male patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate with spinal anesthesia: a prospective, single-arm, single-centre clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022;22(1):247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Li X, Yang D, Li Q, Wang H, Wang M, Yan P, Wu N, Li F, Ma S, Ding Y, Liu J, Wang H. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of a single bolus of the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor potentiator HSK3486 in healthy Chinese elderly and non-elderly. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:735700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Vuyk J, Oostwouder CJ, Vletter AA, Burm AG, Bovill JG. Gender differences in the pharmacokinetics of propofol in elderly patients during and after continuous infusion. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(2):183–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the incredible support of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University.

Funding

This study was funded by the program of Hainan Province Clinical Medical Center (20A200217).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiaoru Wu and Tangyuanmeng Zhao contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, Hai Kou, 570311, China

    Xiaoru Wu, Min Liao, Xingzhou Lin, Jianing Hu & Hu Sun

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Tangyuanmeng Zhao

Authors
  1. Xiaoru Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xingzhou Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianing Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tangyuanmeng Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hu Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaoru Wu designed the study, performed statistical processing and wrote the manuscript. Tangyuanmeng Zhao designed the study and recruited patients. Hu Sun designed the study, recruited patients, funded grants and revised article. Min Liao, Xingzhou Lin and Jianing Hu prepared figures and reviewed the tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors are aware of and responsible for the research data. All authors read and approved the manuscript in its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hu Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University (reference number LW202051) and registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727). The study protocol followed relevant guidelines. The trail was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Institutional Research Board of the authorized hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table 1.

Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) Scale. Table 2. The modified Aldrete score. Table 3. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).

Additional file 2.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, X., Liao, M., Lin, X. et al. Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study. BMC Anesthesiol 24, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02387-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02387-4

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us