Comparison of Ciprofol and Propofol on Postoperative Quality of Recovery and Intraoperative Cerebral Oxygen Saturation in Patients Undergoing Thoracoscopic Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Esketamine versus dexmedetomidine for oxygenation and postoperative quality of recovery in thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority controlled trial.

Ciprofol versus Propofol for Emergence Agitation and Recovery Quality in Pediatric Dental Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ciprofol was associated with significantly lower PAED scores, indicating reduced EA severity, along with faster emergence, improved recovery quality and higher parental satisfaction compared with propofol, suggesting that ciprofol may be an effective alternative to propofol in pediatric outpatient dental anesthesia.

Post-Intubation Hypotension After Titrated Induction with Ciprofol versus Propofol in Older Adults Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose To compare ciprofol with propofol for titrated induction of anesthesia in older adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery, with a focus on post-intubation hypotension and related hemodynamic burden. Methods In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, adults aged 65–89 years undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either ciprofol or propofol, following an identical titration-to-effect induction protocol. The primary outcome was post-intubation hypotension, defined as any mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≤ 65 mmHg during the 15-minute period after successful tracheal intubation and before surgical incision. Secondary outcomes included hypotension burden expressed as area under the curve (AUC), norepinephrine requirement, cardiac output trajectories, time to loss of consciousness, and early postoperative recovery outcomes. Results 160 patients were randomized. Post-intubation hypotension occurred less frequently in the ciprofol group than in the propofol group (28/77 [36.3%] vs 53/79 [67.0%]; adjusted odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–0.54; P < 0.001), consistent across BIS-adjusted sensitivity analyses. Ciprofol was also associated with a lower AUC for MAP ≤ 65 mmHg (0.0 [0.0–3.2] vs 2.5 [0.0–14.8] mmHg min; P = 0.047), reduced norepinephrine requirement (0.0 [0.0–10.0] µg vs 10.0 [0.0–20.0] µg; P < 0.001), and milder early cardiac output decline (group-by-time interaction β = −0.008, 95% CI −0.010 to −0.005; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in early postoperative adverse outcomes. Conclusion In this single-center trial of older adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery, ciprofol-based titrated induction was associated with less post-intubation hypotension, lower rescue vasopressor requirement, and less cumulative hypotensive exposure than propofol, without an apparent increase in early adverse recovery outcomes. These findings suggest a favorable hemodynamic profile of ciprofol, which requires confirmation in larger multicenter studies.

Comparison of intraoperative hemodynamic parameters between propofol- and remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing robotic gynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled trial protocol

Introduction Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil is widely used for general anesthesia but is frequently associated with hypotension and bradycardia. Remimazolam, an ultra–short-acting benzodiazepine, provides rapid onset and offset, with the additional advantage of reversal by flumazenil, and may result in less hemodynamic depression. Previous randomized studies have largely focused on the induction phase or the incidence of hypotension, with limited data on continuous intraoperative hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. The study is designed to compare prospectively the intraoperative hemodynamic profiles of remimazolam-based versus propofol-based TIVA in patients undergoing robotic gynecologic surgery in the Trendelenburg position. Methods and Analysis This prospective, single-center, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial will be conducted at CHA Ilsan Medical Center, a secondary care university-affiliated hospital. In total, 58 adult patients (aged 19–65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II) scheduled for elective robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy under general anesthesia will be enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either remimazolam- or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia, both in combination with remifentanil. Continuous invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) will be monitored using a FloTrac™ sensor (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, United States). The primary outcome will be the time-weighted average MAP (TWA-MAP), analyzed using analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline MAP. Secondary outcomes will include the area under the curve for hypertensive and hypotensive burden, as well as the incidence of adverse hemodynamic events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) will be used to evaluate hemodynamic and respiratory parameters across predefined time points. Discussion This trial is expected to provide prospective, randomized evidence to compare continuous intraoperative blood-pressure trajectories between remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA during robotic gynecologic surgery. It is anticipated that the findings will clarify the relative hemodynamic stability of these anesthetic agents under the combined physiological challenges of Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum. The findings may inform anesthetic drug selection and intraoperative blood pressure management strategies, enhancing cardiovascular stability and improving postoperative outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT07251101.

Comparison of anesthesia induction with ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single center, prospective, double blind randomized controlled trial

Background We compared benefits and adverse effects of anesthesia induction with ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia. Methods A total of 391 patients who underwent painless gastrointestinal endoscopy; age ≥ 60 years; ASA I-III were involved between April 30 and 30 December 2025. The primary outcome was hypoxemia or apnea during anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), SpO2 during surgery, and adverse reactions such as coughing dizziness and agitation. Results No differences were found in hypoxemia and apnea. Except for RR, other hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were significantly different among the groups (p < 0.05), and the degree of blood pressure decline in group E was smaller than groups C and P. Group E patients had lower intraoperative hypotension (p = 0.007) and lower demand for vasoactive drugs (p = 0.006). The injection pain scores in groups C and E were lower, but patients in group E had a higher incidence of myoclonus, and the proportion of coughing and hiccups during endoscopy was higher in group E. The incidence of dizziness was lower in Group C. Conclusion No significant differences were observed in the incidence of hypoxemia and apnea among three groups. Etomidate has the advantage of stable hemodynamics; however, the incidence of myoclonus, bucking, and hiccups is high. Injection pain occurred less frequently with ciprofol and etomidate, while ciprofol was associated with a low incidence of postoperative dizziness. Clinical Trail Registration https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=269837, identifier ChiCTR2500101280.

Effect of Propofol versus Sevoflurane on Postoperative Shivering during Maintenance of General

Background: The choice of anesthetic agent for maintenance of general anesthesia significantly influences intraoperative stability, ‘ recovery profile, and postoperative outcomes. Propofol and sevoflurane are commonly used agents, yet their comparative performance remains clinically relevant. Aim: To compare propofol and sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia with respect to hemodynamic stability, recovery characteristics, and adverse events. Methodology: This prospective, randomized comparative study included 80 ASA I–II patients undergoing elective surgeries. Patients were allocated into two groups: Group P (propofol infusion) and Group S (sevoflurane inhalation). Hemodynamic parameters, recovery times, Modified Aldrete Score, and perioperative adverse events were assessed and analyzed statistically. Results: Demographic variables were comparable between groups. Group P demonstrated significantly better intraoperative hemodynamic stability with lower heart rate and blood pressure values (p < 0.05). Recovery was faster in Group P, with shorter times to eye opening, verbal response, and extubation (p < 0.001). Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and emergence agitation were significantly lower with propofol. Conclusion: Propofol provided superior hemodynamic control, faster recovery, and fewer postoperative adverse effects compared to sevoflurane, making it a preferable agent for maintenance of anesthesia in short elective surgeries.