SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Pharmacology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1644182
This article is part of the Research TopicReviews in Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Pharmacology: 2024View all 14 articles
Potential of ciprofol as an alternative to propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Provisionally accepted- 1The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China
- 2People's Hospital of Ningxiang City, Changsha, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: Ciprofol is increasingly being used for sedation and induction of anesthesia in China. However, it remains unclear whether ciprofol is a more appropriate sedative than propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in the elderly population. This study aimed to compare the safety of ciprofol with propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Eight common databases were used to search the relevant literature up to January 1, 2025. Included studies were screened according to established criteria, and their basic characteristics, outcome data, and risk of bias were recorded. Subsequently, Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) 0.9.5.10 Beta software was used to perform TSA. Results: 12 randomized controlled trials and 1653 participants were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that compared to propofol, ciprofol reduced the incidence of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48‒0.71, P < 0.00001), respiratory depression (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20‒0.46, P < 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.29 , 95% CI 0.20‒0.43, P < 0.00001), injection pain (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10‒0.22, P < 0.00001), involuntary movements (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53‒0.92, P = 0.01) as well as nausea and vomiting (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36‒0.96, P = 0.03), while there was no significant effect on induction time, awakening time, bradycardia, and choking cough (P > 0.05). The TSA revealed conclusive differences in hypotension, respiratory depression, hypoxemia, and injection pain. Regression analysis indicated no publication bias for any of the outcomes (P > 0.05) except awakening time (P = 0.007). Conclusion: These findings suggest that in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, ciprofol has fewer cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological adverse events than propofol, highlighting the potential of ciprofol as an alternative to propofol. However, the optimal dose of ciprofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation in the elderly remains to be explored.
Keywords: Ciprofol, Propofol, elderly patients, gastrointestinal endoscopy, Meta-analysis
Received: 10 Jun 2025; Accepted: 11 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Deng, Yu, Yang, Yin, Liao and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Juan Deng, The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China
Min Liao, People's Hospital of Ningxiang City, Changsha, China
Zhenjie Liu, The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.