Key result
Ciprofol reduces hypotension ~68% vs. propofol during anesthesia induction in elderly lumbar surgery patients.
Why the study?
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ciprofol for anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery.
Does ciprofol reduce adverse events and maintain hemodynamic stability compared to propofol during general anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery?
RCT (n=60)
Double-blind
Randomized block design
No
Does ciprofol reduce adverse events and maintain hemodynamic stability compared to propofol during general anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 20% vs 63%
p-value: p=<0.001
Ciprofol provides comparable anesthesia induction to propofol in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery, but with significantly better hemodynamic stability and less hypotension.
Supports preferring ciprofol over propofol for induction in elderly patients; extends low-certainty evidence with RCT data on hemodynamic stability.
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ciprofol for anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery. Methods Sixty patients aged 65–80 years scheduled for elective lumbar surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups ( n = 30 each): ciprofol group and propofol group. The ciprofol group received intravenous ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg combined with sufentanil 0.4 μg/kg, while the propofol group received propofol 2 mg/kg combined with sufentanil 0.4 μg/kg for anesthesia induction. Hemodynamic parameters including bispectral index (BIS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI), pulse pressure variation (PPV), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), and stroke volume index were recorded during induction. Time to achieve target anesthetic depth was also evaluated. Adverse events including movement, lacrimation, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and coughing during induction were documented. Results Both groups showed comparable time to achieve target anesthetic depth and similar trends in hemodynamic changes. However, the ciprofol group demonstrated significantly lower incidence of hypotension compared to the propofol group (20% vs. 63%, P < 0.05), with reduced norepinephrine consumption. The incidence of other adverse events showed no significant differences between groups. Conclusion Ciprofol demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy to propofol for anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery, with superior hemodynamic stability, supporting its clinical application in geriatric lumbar surgery. Clinical trial registration The trial was registered, before patient enrollment, in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ) (Clinical trial number: ChiCTR2300069858, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=192839 , principal investigator’s name: Gang Yao, date of registration: 28/03/2023).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Elderly patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery under general anesthesia (n=60). Ciprofol vs. Propofol 2.0 mg/kg combined with sufentanil 0.4 µg/kg was evaluated on Incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction (p=<0.001). Ciprofol significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension compared to propofol (20% vs. 63%) during general anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing lumbar surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: