Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Year: 2025
Type: review
Study designs: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Ciprofol has emerged as a potential alternative sedative with improved safety and efficacy. However, comparative data for colonoscopy sedation remain limited. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science identified RCTs published through August 2025. Studies included patients undergoing colonoscopy using ciprofol or propofol, reporting relevant efficacy or safety outcomes. Risk Ratios (RRs) and Mean Differences (MDs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and 95% Confidence Intervals. The heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and Cochrane Q test. Primary outcomes were procedure success rate and patient satisfaction (assessed on a 1-to-10 scale). Secondary outcomes included sedation onset time(s), respiratory depression, injection pain, and hemodynamic adverse events (hypotension and bradycardia). The statistical analyses were performed in R software (version 4.4.1.) RESULTS: Three RCTs with 645 patients were included. Colonoscopy success rates were similar between ciprofol and propofol (RR = 1.005; 95% CI 0.992-1.019). Ciprofol showed a lower risk of respiratory depression (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.08-0.71), injection pain (RR = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01-0.15), and hypotension (RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.96). Patient satisfaction was slightly higher with ciprofol (MD = 0.18; 95% CI 0.08-0.29). No significant differences were found in sedation onset time (s) (MD = 2.49s; 95% CI -3.77-8.74) or bradycardia (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.44-1.77). CONCLUSION: Ciprofol provides comparable efficacy to propofol for colonoscopy sedation, with a lower incidence of respiratory depression, injection pain, and hypotension. Patient satisfaction was slightly higher with ciprofol, while bradycardia occurrence was similar. These findings suggest ciprofol as a promising alternative, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefits.
Authors: Saul Dominici, Italo C. Martins, Breno Dias L. Ribeiro, Victor Arthur Ohannesian, Brunno Braga Sauaia, Abdias Rocha Santos, Caio Márcio Barros de Oliveira, Plínio da Cunha Leal
Institution: Universidade Federal do Maranhão
Language: English
Subfield: Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4416410750