Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Apr 9;25(1):161.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03042-w.

Ciprofol versus propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled trial

Feng-Zhi Zhao #  1 , Long-Zhu Li #  1 , Pei-Yan Luo #  2 , Xiang-Jie Duan  1 , Shi-Fang Huang  3 , Hai-Yan Yin  4 , Wan-Jie Gu  5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Ciprofol versus propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled trial

Feng-Zhi Zhao et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: Sedatives are often used to facilitate mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis. Ciprofol is a new promising sedated candidate with a higher binding activity to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor than propofol. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis.

Methods: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) who anticipated to require long-term sedation ≥ 24 h were randomly assigned to receive intravenous ciprofol or propofol. The target sedation goal was - 3 to 0 according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The primary outcome was weaning time. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time within the target sedation range, successful sedation (the percentage of time within the target sedation range ≥ 70% without rescue sedation), ICU and in-hospital mortality, length of ICU and hospital stay, hypotension, and bradycardia.

Results: A total of 60 patients were randomized, 4 were excluded because of withdrawing treatment, 28 were assigned to ciprofol group and 28 to propofol group. Weaning time in ciprofol group was shorter than propofol group (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 104.0 [40.8-147.3] hours vs 132.5 [69.8-207.8] hours), but not reached significant difference between groups (P = 0.123). Ciprofol had significantly higher percentage of time within the target sedation range (median [IQR], 72.2% [14.3-92.7%] vs 22.6% [0.0-45.4%]) and successful sedation (53.6% [15/28] vs 14.3% [4/28]) than propofol. No significant differences were observed in ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, hypotension, and bradycardia between groups.

Conclusions: Ciprofol is an effective and safe agent among mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis who anticipated to require long-term sedation.

Trial registration number: The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200066835) on December 19, 2022.

Keywords: Ciprofol; Mechanical ventilation; Propofol; Sedation; Sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This trial has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This trial has been approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University (KY- 2022–090). The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200066835) on December 19, 2022. All participants’ legally authorized representatives signed written informed consent before enrollment. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient screening, enrollment, and randomization
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Weaning time between the ciprofol and propofol groups
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A, percentage of time within the target sedation range (with a RASS score of 3 to 0); B, successful sedation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lukić I, Mihić D, Varžić SC, Relatić KS, Zibar L, Loinjak D, et al. Septic Cardiomyopathy. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024;25(1):23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li L, Peng X, Zhou L, Zhang Z, Xiong Y, Zhang Z, et al. Sex Differences in the Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prognosis of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias in Sepsis Patients. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024;25(4):132. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dhital R, Basnet S, Poudel DR. Predictors and outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with sepsis: data from National Inpatient Sample. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2018;8(2):49–52. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources