REVIEW article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Drugs Outcomes Research and Policies
Ciprofol Injection in Patients Receiving Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: A Retrospective Study
Provisionally accepted
- Zhengzhou People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, 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
Object This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in sedation for patients undergoing non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), with a focus on evaluating sedative efficiency and systematically comparing the incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory depression, and adverse reactions. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 120 patients receiving NPPV at our hospital between June 2024 and October 2025. According to the sedative agent used, patients were divided into a Ciprofol group (Group C, n=56) and a Propofol group (Group P, n=64). The primary outcome was the sedation induction time, defined as the duration from drug administration to the first achievement of the target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -2 to 0. Secondary outcomes included the recovery time, extubation time, dynamic changes in respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during treatment, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions such as hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 90%), hypotension, and injection pain. Results Regarding the primary outcome, the sedation induction time was comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that the Ciprofol group demonstrated several advantages: ①Enhanced Safety Profile: The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension were significantly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.05). ②Faster Recovery: Both emergence time and full recovery time were shorter in the Ciprofol group compared to the Propofol group (p < 0.05). ③Improved Tolerability: The incidence of injection pain was markedly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.001), and fluctuations in respiratory and circulatory parameters during treatment were also reduced. This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Conclusion For patients undergoing NPPV, ciprofol provides sedation efficacy comparable to propofol while demonstrating a superior safety profile, faster recovery, and enhanced injection tolerability. This combination of advantages makes ciprofol a preferable alternative for sedation in this clinical setting.
Keywords: Ciprofol, Non-Invasive Positive Pressure, Retrospective study, Safety, sedation
Received: 12 Nov 2025; Accepted: 05 Feb 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Zhang, Xiao, Lv, Ma, Zhang and Niu. 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: Xingguo Niu
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.