Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of ciprofol monotherapy versus combined propofol for painless gastroscopy.

Authors: Yongzhuang, Shan; Wenshan, Zhai; Yayun, Hou; Guangming, Li;

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of ciprofol monotherapy versus combined propofol for painless gastroscopy.

Abstract

Traditional sedatives like Propofol can lead to adverse effects. This study compares the safety and efficacy of Ciprofol monotherapy versus combined Propofol for painless gastroscopy. Patients underwent painless gastroscopy at our hospital from January 2023 to December 2023 were studied. Sedation quality, adverse events, patient satisfaction, cognitive function, pain, anxiety, gastrointestinal side effects and endoscopic quality and so on was recorded and assessed. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing painless gastroscopy from January to December 2023. Participants (n = 200) were categorized into Ciprofol (n = 102) and Combined Propofol (n = 98) groups. The Ciprofol group exhibited longer sedation onset (4.35 ± 1.71 min) but significantly quicker recovery (12.64 ± 4.54 min) compared to the combined group. Adverse events of nausea (2.94% vs 10.20%, p = 0.037) and vomiting (1.96% vs 9.18%, p = 0.025) were less frequent in the Ciprofol group, although satisfaction scores were similar between groups. Cognitive function, pain, anxiety levels and gastrointestinal side effects was comparable. Endoscopy quality measures showed no significant differences. Cyclophenol monotherapy is a viable alternative to combine Propofol, offering a reduced incidence of adverse effects and quicker recovery without compromising procedure quality or cognitive outcomes.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Male, Adult, Cyclopropanes, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Gastroscopy, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Female, Middle Aged, Propofol, Retrospective Studies, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!