Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous anesthetic agent with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger binding to the GABAA receptor and elicits a greater enhancement of GABAA receptor‐mediated neuronal currents in vitro. The aims of the present clinical trials were to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. A total of 105 elderly patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive one of three sedation regimens: (1) the C1 group (0.2 mg/kg ciprofol), (2) the C2 group (0.3 mg/kg ciprofol), (3) the C3 group (0.4 mg/kg ciprofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of various adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and injection pain. The secondary outcomes of efficacy were the success rate of general anesthesia induction, the time to anesthesia induction, and the frequency of remedial sedation was recorded in each group. Adverse events occurred in 13 patients (37%) in group C1, 8 patients (22%) in group C2, and 24 patients (68%) in group C3. Compared with group C2, the total incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in group C1 and group C3 ( p < .001).The success rate of general anesthesia induction in the three groups was 100%. Compared with group C1, the frequency of remedial sedation was significantly lower in group C2 and group C3. The outcomes demonstrated that ciprofol at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg has good safety and efficacy in the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. Overall, ciprofol is a new and viable option for the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.

To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. Methods: A total of 149 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Group C received an induction dose of ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 0.6-1.2 mg/kg/h to maintain BIS value between 40-60. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0-6.0 mg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the successful rate of hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes included the change of hemodynamic, respiratory adverse events, injection pain, body movement, recovery time, anesthetist's satisfaction, time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Results: The success rate of hysteroscopy in each group was 100%. After drug administration, the incidence of hypotension in Group C was much lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group C (4.0%) was much lower than that in Group P (31.1%) (P< 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and body movement in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The mean eyelash reflex disappearance time was less than 3 minutes in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in awakening times, anesthetist's satisfaction and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No serious adverse events occurred in any patients. Conclusion: Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative to propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. In comparison to propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less impact on hemodynamics, and results in less respiratory depression.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for hysteroscopy. Methods: A total of 150 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). Group C received an induction dose of 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 1.0 mg/kg/h. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 5.0 mg/kg/h. All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Changes in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index were recorded after admission (T0), before the initiation of sedative infusion (T1), 2 min after anesthesia (T2), 5 min after anesthesia (T3), 10 min after anesthesia (T4), end of operation (T5), 5 min after operation (T6), and 10 min after operation (T7). Additionally, the incidence rates of adverse events, disappearance time of the eyelash reflex, and the awakening time were compared between the two groups. Results: The success rate of sedation in each group was 100%. The mean eyelash reflex disappearance and awakening times were 1.4 min and 5.4 min, respectively, for ciprofol and 1.2 min and 4.6 min, respectively, for propofol. The bispectral index change pattern for ciprofol was similar to that of propofol and was stable during maintenance of anesthesia. After drug administration, the blood pressure in Group C was more stable than that in Group P (P< 0.001). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group P (23.0%) was much higher than that in Group C (2.7%) (P< 0.001). The incidence of injection pain in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P (P< 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred in any patients. Conclusions: Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative than propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Compared with propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less effect on hemodynamics, and causes less respiratory depression.

Purpose This study was performed to observe the effect of remimazolam combined with sufentanil on hemodynamics during anesthetic induction in advanced-age patients with hypertension undergoing orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs. Methods This randomized controlled trial included 60 advanced-age patients with hypertension who were undergoing orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs. The patients were randomly assigned to undergo general anesthesia with either remimazolam (group R) or propofol (group P, n = 30, each group).The MAP,HR,CO,CI,SVR and pulse oxygen saturation were recorded. The disappearance time of the eyelash reflex, injection pain, hypotension, bradycardia, hiccuping, nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events were observed. Results The MAP, HR, CO, CI, and SVR were significantly higher in Group R than P at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (P < 0.05). In Group P, the MAP, HR, CO, and CI were significantly lower and the SVR was significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, and T4 than at T0 (P < 0.05). The disappearance time of the eyelash reflex was significantly longer in Group R than P, and the injection pain, hypotension, and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group R than P (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in hiccupping or nausea and vomiting between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The combination of remimazolam and sufentanil for induction of general anesthesia produces only small hemodynamic fluctuation, maintains stability of the circulation, and has few adverse effects, making it more suitable for advanced-age patients with hypertension.