Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial compares automated anesthesia to clinician management for safety and efficiency in adults undergoing endoscopy, suggesting potential benefits.
The increasing demand for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, coupled with a global shortage of anesthesiologists, underscores the need for intelligent automation in anesthesia care. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising strategy for autonomous anesthesia control, yet prospective clinical validation remains limited. We developed an RL-based automated anesthesia system for gastrointestinal endoscopy (AAS-GE) for automated ciprofol delivery and conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial across four centers in China between January 8 and August 27, 2025. Adults aged 18-65 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAS-GE-controlled anesthesia or clinician-managed manual anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as oxygen saturation below 92%, with secondary outcomes assessing hypoxemia severity, induction time, drug use, recovery, and adverse events. A total of 509 participants were included in algorithm development, and 418 were enrolled for clinical validation. The incidence of hypoxemia was comparable between groups (14.42 vs. 14.29%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.59-1.75; P = 0.968), with no significant differences in secondary safety outcomes. AAS-GE achieved a shorter induction time (median 1.55 vs. 1.90 min; P < 0.001) without increasing total drug dose or recovery time. However, intraoperative body movement was more frequent in the AAS-GE group, consistent with lighter anesthesia depth. These results demonstrate the non-inferior safety and efficacy of AAS-GE compared with clinician management, supporting its potential to improve efficiency and standardize sedation care. Clinical registration: ClinicalTrials.gov on Feb. 26, 2025 (NCT06857344).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bing et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: