RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection. RESULTS: The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol. CONCLUSION: Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.
RESUMO
Simulation for airway management allows for acquaintance with new devices and techniques. Endotracheal intubation (ETI), most commonly performed with direct laryngoscopy (DL) or video laryngoscopy (VLS), can be achieved also with combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation (CLBI). Finally, an articulating video stylet (ProVu) has been recently introduced. A single-center observational cross-sectional study was performed in a normal simulated airway scenario comparing DL, VLS-Glidescope, VLS-McGrath, CLBI and ProVu regarding the success rate (SR) and corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, which accounts for the SR). Up to three attempts/device were allowed (maximum of 60 s each). Forty-two consultants with no experience with ProVu participated (15 ± 9 years after training completion). The DL was significantly faster (cTTI) than all other devices (p = 0.033 vs. VLSs, and p < 0.001 for CLBI and Provu), no differences were seen between the two VLSs (p = 0.775), and the VLSs were faster than CLBI and ProVu. Provu had a faster cTTI than CLBI (p = 0.004). The DL and VLSs showed similar SRs, and all the laryngoscopes had a higher SR than CLBI and ProVu at the first attempt. However, by the third attempt, the SR was not different between the DL/VLSs and ProVu (p = 0.241/p = 0.616); ProVu was superior to CLBI (p = 0.038). In consultants with no prior experience, ProVu shows encouraging results compared to DL/VLSs under simulated normal airway circumstances and further studies are warranted.